Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Post Offices (Modernisation)

Mr. Cleaver: asked the Postmaster-General what progress is being made with the scheme for the modernisation of public post offices.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): I hope to modernise all our older public offices—about 1,000 of them all told—in the next seven or eight years. In the current year, I hope to deal with about one hundred. Work on twenty-five has already started, or is about to start, and plans for the others are well advanced. This work supplements the ordinary Post Office building programme.

Mr. Cleaver: This is very encouraging news. Can my right hon. Friend say whether the figures which he has quoted include the rebuilding of the post office in Acocks Green and the reorganisation of the parcels sorting section in Yardley?

Mr. Bevins: The sorting space at Yardley does not fall within the modernisation programme, although we shall be having a look at that. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the Acocks Green post office in 1963. We cannot deal with it earlier, because we want to move certain of the postal operations to another site and give a larger public office.

Mr. Mason: In connection with modernisation, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Committee which has been studying the question of sites and buildings is due to report and to what extent the contents of the report will be made public?

Mr. Bevins: I have already received certain reports from the experts who are giving me advice on this matter, but I am still awaiting other reports. As soon as I am in a position to make a statement to the House, I will do so.

Shops (Sale of Stamps)

Mr. Farr: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to bring to the notice of the public the whereabouts of the large number of shops where postage stamps are sold.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Miss Mervyn Pike): Attractive display cards advertising the sale of stamps are now available. We are letting all licensees know about these cards and we hope that they will use them.

Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer, which I think will meet the great need of making members of the public more easily aware of the facilities which are available in this connection.

Books of Stamps

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that in using the 10s. stamp book it requires 12 stamps to post 6 postcards, he will adjust the book by substituting one page of 2½d. stamps for one page of 3d. stamps and varying the other denominations accordingly.

Miss Pike: We intend to review the range and content of all our stamp books, including the 10s. one, later this year, when we shall be able to judge public reaction to the new books. In making this review we will certainly bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that I suggested that a 10s. book should be introduced as long ago as 2nd November, 1955, and I think that it was a mistake when her predecessor did not accept the suggestion? Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that certain Members of Parliament and even Surtax payers still send postcards from time to time and would like a 2½d. stamp in the book?

Miss Pike: We were grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion which belatedly found acceptance in our policy


in the Post Office. We will certainly look at this further suggestion.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not be better to sell these books, whatever they contain, at cut rates?

Religious and Charitable Organisations (Postal Rates)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he has given consideration to providing concessionary postal rates for the use of religious and bona fide charitable organisations; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend has considered this matter very carefully, but, much as he sympathises with the aims of the organisations which the hon. Member mentions, he is sorry that he cannot provide concessionary postal rates for them.

Mr. Dempsey: When the Minister arrived at this decision, did he take into consideration the fact that these are non-profit-making undertakings? Did he consider that other European countries provide such concessionary postal rates for similar organisations in those parts of Europe?

Miss Pike: I assure the hon. Member that all these considerations were looked at by my right hon. Friend. The difficulty is that there are many non-profit-making organisations, scientific, educational and social, and it would be very difficult to know where to drew the line.

Road Works (Bloomsbury)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Postmaster-General what is the purpose of the large hole in the road at the corner of Store Street and Gower Street, Bloomsbury; on what date it was opened; when it will be closed; and what was the cause of the delay that there has been in completing these works.

Mr. Bevins: This hole in the road is needed for the construction of a tunnel to take additional telephone cables. Work started on 7th October last and it should be finished tomorrow, though work further along Store Street will go on for another two or three months. The delay has been caused by the special requirements of the local highway authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Telephone Directories (Advertisements)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Postmaster-General why he has decided to refuse all advertisements of commercial firms for the front covers of telephone directories; and if he will set a time limit to this policy.

Mr. Bevins: I decided on this change of policy on two grounds. Firstly, it seems right that this page—the most convenient page for subscribers—should be used to draw the attention of the public to particular telephone services and facilities; and, secondly, it improves the typographical layout.
The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No, Sir".

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my right hon. Friend say how much revenue he is losing by this policy? Has it not been adopted to boost a service which is fairly well-known? Does not he feel that he is being rather unkind to some firms which have advertised for many years on the front page of the telephone directories and which have had such short, peremptory notice that their advertisements can no longer be accepted?

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry if my hon. and gallant Friend feels that I have been unfair to certain of our long-standing advertisers, but, in fact, we gave, in the main, about six months' notice of this change of policy. I think that, generally speaking, it has been accepted.
Concerning the general question of whether we are right in making this change, I am certain in my own mind that we are right. There is a great deal of public ignorance about certain elementary telephone facilities. For example, about one-third of our sub scribers do not know when the cheap rate begins and ends. I think that we are well justified in sacrificing a matter of £20,000 a year in order to let them have that information.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman's decision will meet with full approval from this side of the House.

Business and Private Subscribers

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Postmaster-General how he distinguishes between a business and private telephone subscriber.

Miss Pike: My right hon. Friend seeks to apply the provisions of Regulation 11 (4) of the Telephone Regulations, 1960, where the emphasis is placed on the purposes for which the premises are likely to be used.

Mr. Harrison: But does not my right hon. Friend think it very silly that if somebody wants to have a business telephone in his house and is willing to pay the business rental, which would provide more income to the Post Office, he should be refused and that he should have to continue to be classified as a private subscriber?

Miss Pike: The great difficulty is that business rental means that a person is not liable to share. People who are prepared to pay the business tariff would be relieved from the liability of sharing and, in the circumstances, I do not think that this would be just.

Standard Kiosk (Design)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Postmaster-General if he will consider, in consultation with the Council of Industrial Design, the desirability of commissioning a new design for the standard telephone kiosk.

Mr. Bevins: I am having prototypes made of a new kiosk. It has been designed by Mr. Neville Conder and approved for trial, by both the Council of Industrial Design and the Royal Fine Art Commission. I hope to put the prototype into experimental use by the end of this year.

Mr. Driberg: Is this the one about which an announcement was made in 1958? If so, would it not be possible to make slightly more rapid progress? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the antique, archaic and quaint kiosk is still being put up in large numbers outside modern buildings, where it looks rather incongruous?

Mr. Bevins: The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes". This has had a somewhat chequered history and there have been a number of technical difficulties in connection with this prototype, the main one being to find some method of making the coin box part of the structure of the kiosk so that it could not be ripped out by all and sundry.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor, the present Minister of Transport, and the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw were both very much attracted to the spacious and clean-looking aluminium kiosk to be seen in America?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, indeed. The new prototype in many respects emulates the American type, but there have been certain technical deficiencies in the design.

Mr. Farr: When suggestions for the design of a new kiosk are considered and put into practice, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the door is made easier to open? Is he aware that in many cases old ladies have found it difficult to open the door, especially on a windy day?

Mr. Bevins: That is a very valid point.

Charges

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that private telephone users have been fully informed of the revised scale and arrangement for telephone charges; what information he has about the effect of the present charge scale and arrangements on the length of calls and increase of accounts compared with the previous position; and what representations he has had urging a further revision.

Mr. Bevins: I go to considerable lengths to inform subscribers about S.T.D. before the system is introduced at any particular exchange.
So far, a comparison between the periods immediately before and after S.T.D. shows that the duration of both trunk and local calls tends to shorten, that more calls are made and that the average bill for calls is slightly less.
I have had no respresentations about the new charges for trunk calls. As regards local calls, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 19th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington), and to my reply of 1st February to the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot).

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his previous reply to another Question today implied that insufficient has been done to draw the attention of the public to the scales and to the system now introduced? In those


circumstances, and in view of his implicit admission, what else will the right hon. Gentleman do to make the information more easily available?

Mr. Bevins: I am quite satisfied that we go to considerable lengths to tell the public in those areas where S.T.D. is about to come into operation what the system is all about, and what the charges are, and so forth, and in a general sense quite a lot of information has been disseminated by the Post Office to the public at large. I think that quite a general understanding is developing of how the system works.

Kiosks (Wilful Damage)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Postmaster-General what further consideration he has given to the possibility of attaching de vices in telephone kiosks that will give audible warnings when telephone apparatus is being or has been wilfully damaged.

Mr. Bevins: Experiments have not so far produced any useful results, but work is still in progress and I will write to the hon. Gentleman as progress is made.

Mr. Sorensen: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that some time ago an assurance was given that this was being investigated? Could he say whether the Department is on the right track in connection with these suggested devices?

Mr. Bevins: Following upon an earlier Question by the hon. Member, I set a study group to work on this problem and some alarms were tried out in the East End of London in co-operation with the Metropolitan Police. Although these alarms were connected for a whole week to a number of kiosks which had previously suffered frequent damage, no incident whatever occurred during that week. We are now trying to introduce a device—not an alarm—to make damage more difficult in certain areas of London, and I hope that it will prove more effective.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling System (Northern Ireland)

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to extend the subscriber trunk dialling system to

Northern Ireland and, in particular, to the Larne Exchange.

Mr. Bevins: I expect to introduce S.T.D. in Belfast this October; in Larne about the middle of 1963; and in twelve other towns in Northern Ireland during 1962 and 1963.

Mr. Clark: Would my right hon. Friend look into the matter again and see whether he could not speed up its introduction at Larne? Is he aware that there is distinct discontent with the present charges there?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that I can advance the date before 1963, but I am well aware of my hon. Friend's disquiet and I will have another look at the matter.

Timed Local Calls

Mr. Lipton: asked the Postmaster-General what additional revenue he expects to obtain from timed local telephone calls.

Mr. Bevins: None, Sir. The system of timing local calls, in areas with S.T.D., was introduced so that the unit charge could be reduced.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ordinary private subscriber is in for the very big shock of a heavily increased bill when these local calls are charged at the rate of 1d. per minute? Is he aware that the ordinary subscriber will lose much more than he will ever gain under this system?

Mr. Bevins: On the contrary, there is no evidence whatever that this is so in areas where S.T.D. has been introduced. The average level of bill for business and residential subscribers where it is in operation is about 3 per cent. less than it was before the system was introduced.

Sir R. Grimston: Is there any system of warning by pips for timed local calls, as in the case of trunk calls? Is my right hon. Friend aware that otherwise many local telephone subscribers will have a very big shock when they receive their accounts?

Mr. Bevins: There is such a system in the case of local calls from kiosks but not in the case of ordinary residential lines. I realise that there may be some difficulties as this system becomes widespread throughout the country, but


in the whole matter of the timing of local calls one has to bear in mind that the advantages of this system are really so overwhelming—

Mr. Lipton: No.

Mr. Bevins: Oh, yes. They are so overwhelming that we should take any fringe disadvantages in our stride and consider what we should do to ameliorate them as we go along.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people's telephones are almost permanently engaged by long conversations? If this system knocks that out, it will be much welcomed by subscribers.

Mr. Bevins: That is one of those questions where I must be circumspect in what I say.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not time that some subscribers became a little more time-conscious?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND (PENSIONS)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has now heard from Her Majesty's Ambassador in Mogadishu regarding the negotiations with the Somali Republic about the pensions to be paid to former colonial civil servants in British Somaliland; and whether these will now be brought up to the level of the United Kingdom Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): I regret that I cannot yet add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 20th March.

Mr. Tilney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had considerable correspondence with the Minister of State for the Colonies some time before British Somaliland attained independence, and that I was assured that the matter of pensions was being looked into? Yet nothing was done. Does not he agree that this sort of thing is possibly the worst advertisement for keeping people in the service of the Crown overseas?

Mr. Heath: As my hon. Friend knows, this matter was raised with Somaliland Ministers. In the short time available before independence it was not possible for them to introduce legislation,

and in any case it was their view that such legislation before independence might have led to misunderstanding or criticism. Since then we have been in contact with the Somaliland Government, and I am hopeful that we shall be able to reach a settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (PENSIONS)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent Her Majesty's Government have retained responsibility for attaining improvement in the level of pensions of former Sudan civil servants for whom they are responsible.

Mr. Heath: The responsibility for attainnig an improvement in the pensions of these officials rests with the Sudan Government. Nevertheless, as I told my hon. Friend on 22nd February, we have thought it appropriate to make representations to the Sudan Government about an improvement in pensions on several occasions.

Mr. Tilney: Now that the Sudan Government say that they cannot afford it—and I have sympathy with their view—do Her Majesty's Government intend to do anything about it?

Mr. Heath: I have told my hon. Friend and the House that the main responsibility for this rests with the Sudan Government. If we find a suitable opportunity to approach them again about this matter, we shall do so.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the juridical situation, Her Majesty's Government have a very strong moral responsibility for looking after these men? I strongly support the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that, if Her Majesty's Government fail to carry out their responsibility, it will be an appalling advertisement for British citizens who are now being asked by the Government to accept similar duties in other parts of the world.

Mr. Heath: In other parts of the world, the Governments concerned are carrying out their responsibilities. In this case, the Sudan Government are carrying out their responsibility for paying the pensions. Let us be quite


clear about that. The particular question involved here is a pensions increase. On that matter, we have pressed the Sudan Government to see whether it is possible for them to carry out that responsibility.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men who have given so much to the Empire and the Commonwealth should be treated with all possible generosity by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Heath: We are anxious that they should be treated as well as possible. As this is the responsibility of the Sudan Government, we are asking that Government to treat them as generously as they can.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: In view of the sudden and unexpected turn of events in the Sudan, which originally gave rise to this problem, would not my right hon. Friend agree that while there may be, juridically, no doubt that the responsibility is that of the new Sudan Government, morally Her Majesty's Govern-men cannot escape responsibility?

Mr. Heath: The difficulty which arose at the time of independence was about the arrangements for the payment of pensions. The Sudan Government are paying the pensions, and I have every confidence that they will continue to do so. Now there is the question of whether there can be a pensions increase, and we have pressed the Sudan Government to see whether that is possible. Meantime, this remains the responsibility of the Sudan Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Lord Privy Seal if the strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to provide front-line units with tactical nuclear weapons has been altered following the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States of America.

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on his recent visit to the United States of America, made or

received any new proposals from the United States Government about the future supply of tactical nuclear weapons to the West German armed forces.

Mr. Heath: As I reminded the House on 27th March, it is already accepted North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy that the shield forces should be equipped with nuclear weapons for tactical use. No new proposals in this field were made during the recent Washington talks. Moreover, any alteration to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation policy is a matter for the North Atlantic Council as a whole, not for the United Kingdom or the United States in isolation.

Mr. Allaun: Has not President Kennedy recently and publicly expressed his desire to keep N.A.T.O. forces to non-nuclear weapons? On this occasion, as opposed to several others, is not the President absolutely right, in view of the increased danger of war by accident if numerous front-line commanders have their fingers on the trigger?

Mr. Heath: As I understand it, that is not the view expressed by President Kennedy. He has stated his desire that the strength of the conventional forces of N.A.T.O. should be increased, but he has not asked or expressed a wish that nuclear weapons should be either reduced or removed.

Mr. Foot: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that, before the Federal German Chancellor paid his recent visit to Washington, it was widely suggested that he would ask, or demand, a great or considerable increase in the supply of these tactical nuclear weapons to German forces? May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that these proposals by Dr. Adenauer were not even discussed in Washington with the Foreign Secretary, or that the German Chancellor's proposals have been turned down flat?

Mr. Heath: I am dealing with discussions which took place between the President and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Healey: Why is the right hon. Gentleman being so coy about this? It is being widely publicised in the United States that the American Government


have persuaded the West German Government to accept Pershing missiles instead of Mace missiles, which have a much longer range. Is this not at least a step, even though a small one, in the right direction? Will not Her Majesty's Government support more steps like it?

Mr. Heath: In answer to the Question on the Order Paper, I was dealing with the talks between the Prime Minister and President Kennedy.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the term "tactical nuclear weapons" is a euphemistic expression, because they include weapons several times more destructive than those used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is that right?

Mr. Heath: I understand that that is so. We have discussed before in this House the whole question of the use of weapons for tactical and strategic purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALGERIA

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal when Her Majesty's Government intends to give de facto recognition to the provisional Algerian Government in Tunis.

Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating de facto recognition.

Mr. Stonehouse: Do not recent events in Algeria show the great dangers inherent in the continuation of the colonial war against the Algerians, and, indeed, the danger to the stability of France itself? Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that several Western Powers have entered into discussions with the administration of Mr. Abbas, including the United States? Will not Her Majesty's Government recognise the stupidity of forcing the Algerians to look mainly to Communist States for recognition?

Mr. Heath: I should have thought that the rapid collapse of the revolt spoke for itself, as far as the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is concerned.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part? Does not he realise that refusal to recognise the existence of the Algerian Government

in exile in Tunisia will only force them into closer contact with Communist countries?

Mr. Heath: Our attitude towards the Algerian question is well understood. We are hopeful that talks will be held which will lead to a settlement, in view of the statements made by President de Gaulle. We are not contemplating recognition.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct Her Majesty's Government representative on the Security Council to raise the question of the threatened invasion of France by Frence rebel generals in Algeria as a threat to international peace.

Mr. Heath: As the House is aware, it was announced this morning that the revolt in Algeria is now over. I am sure that the House will agree that this is a most satisfactory outcome and that it will wish to express to President de Gaulle and to the French Government its good wishes and its congratulations.

Mr. Hughes: While we all agree with that, and congratulate the people of France and the people of Cuba on the defeat of military interventions in both countries, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not also pleased to know that now the way is open for peace in Algeria in a way which will make every decent French citizen rejoice?

Mr. Heath: Yes, I am sure that the whole House is anxious for a peaceful settlement of the Algerian problem and that President de Gaulle should be able to start his talks with the F.L.N. in order that a settlement might be reached.

Mr. Fell: May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will not interfere in the internal matters of France or any other nation now or at any time in the future?

Mr. Heath: It is not the policy of this country to interfere with the internal affairs of any country.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government will oppose the admission of Spain to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Heath: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave the House on this matter in answer to Questions on 11th April.

Mr. Stonehouse: What is the Government's position on this? Are they proposing to support the admission of Spain? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that if they intend to do that, he will come to the House and give their reasons for supporting the application of a Fascist country to an alliance which is supposed to be in defence of freedom?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member will read the previous Answers on this subject, he will see that this matter is not before N.A.T.O.

Oral Answers to Questions — ODER-NEISSE LINE

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line on Poland's final frontier with Germany.

Mr. Heath: There has been no change in the attitude of Her Majesty's Government as stated in the reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 11th November, 1959.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was recently stated by representatives of the Polish Government that they had had some exchanges with the United States Government on this subject? Does not he think that it would be a good idea for the British Government to use their influence, along with Governments like the French Government, to persuade nations to agree finally on the recognition of this frontier?

Mr. Heath: It was explained to the House at the time that the question of recognition of this frontier is bound up with the question of the future of Germany. That remains Her Majesty's Government's position.

Mr. Foot: Is it not the case that the French Government have made a clear statement saying that this frontier should be recognised? Is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to try to use their influence in this respect?

Mr. Heath: I understand that President de Gaulle's position is that Germany's proper destiny is reunification, provided that it does not reopen the question of the frontier. There is no contradiction between that and our view.

Mr. Healey: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that President de Gaulle specifically stated that German reunification should take place within the existing frontiers—namely, within the Oder-Neisse line as it exists? If the French Government are prepared to take this position, which will greatly assist the possibility of a European settlement, why cannot the British Government do the same?

Mr. Heath: We maintain our policy that this matter must await a full settlement and reunification of Germany.

Mr. Delargy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said in this House that this frontier was finally decided upon at Potsdam, and that all this talk of altering the boundaries by international treaty merely meant, in his opinion, very minor adjustments along the border?

Mr. Heath: I do not recollect that statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford, and I should like to consult it before giving an opinion about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal how the British delegate voted in the United Nations discussions on Cuba.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the result of the discussions at the United Nations on the Cuban situation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the actions taken by the British delegate at the United Nations in connection with the resolution on Cuba.

Mr. Heath: The United Kingdom delegate voted in favour of the resolution sponsored by Argentina and six other Latin American countries and against that sponsored by Mexico. The former resolution was passed with 59 votes in favour, 13 against and 24 abstentions. The vote on the latter resolution, which


failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority, was 41 in favour, 35 against and 20 abstentions. Full details of the voting will be found in the relevant United Nations document, of which a copy will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.
Her Majesty's Government considered that the resolution put forward by the representatives of Argentina and six other Latin-American delegations held out the best possibility of dealing with this difficult problem. It did not attempt to prejudge the issues involved, about which at the time there could be no real certainty. It also, indirectly, took some account of the Organisation of American States which clearly has a special interest in this matter.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when the Mexican resolution was voted on Clause by Clause, Her Majesty's Government abstained from supporting ninety other members of the United Nations on the Clause which asked United Nations members to refrain from encouraging and fomenting civil war in other States?
Can he explain why the British representative abstained from voting on a Clause, also widely supported, which asked members not to allow their territory to be used for supporting civil war in other member States?
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that that part of the Argentine resolution which gave responsibility to the Organisation of American States failed to receive the necessary majority, and was voted against by a number of Latin-American countries? In view of these facts, do not the Government recognise that the present conflict between the United States and Cuba is a matter of grave concern for the United Nations as a whole?

Mr. Heath: As I understand it, there is no conflict before the United Nations between the United States and Cuba at this moment. Our attitude to these resolutions, of which there were four, was explained in detail by our delegate in his speech. We voted against the Mexican resolution and its constituent Clauses because we supported the resolution by the Argentine, considering that to be the best way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Warbey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the dangerous activity of the United States Government in relation to Cuba, now openly admitted and confirmed, is a matter of international concern, and cannot be dealt with purely by a closed shop?

Mr. Heath: I do not accept the hon. Member's opening statement. The problem was before the United Nations last year, when the Organisation of American States dealt with it as a regional organisation. We believe that is where the responsibility should rest now.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that many people in this country are convinced that America is completely wrong in its policy towards Cuba? Does he not think that the people of this country would be glad to see Her Majesty's Government licking the boots of the Americans a little less and speaking up for the people of this country a little more?

Mr. Heath: If the hon. Member will recall the middle part of my Answer, he will remember that fifty-nine of the nations voted in favour of the Argentine resolution, which seems to deny the first part of his question and to support my argument that that was the way in which the majority of members of the United Nations wished to deal with it.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not my hon. Friend agree that President Kennedy inherited a very difficult situation over Cuba? Would it not be more generous to give him some support instead of constantly narking at our greatest ally?

Mr. Mendelson: Apart from those things, will not our failure to support that part of the Mexican resolution which enjoined nations not to allow their territory to be used gravely prejudice our position on future occasions when matters of this kind are discussed at the United Nations?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that that is the case, because this matter was fully debated in the United Nations and our own delegate expressed our own view.

Mr. Foot: Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's replies and from the votes cast by the British Government at the United Nations that the British Government condone and even support


the action which the American Government took about Cuba?

Mr. Heath: First, that is not a question with which I am dealing and, secondly, the American representative at the United Nations, as well as the President and the Secretary of State in their own speeches and Press conference, have denied that any invasion took place from United States territory.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Lord Privy Seal what evidence has been submitted to the United Nations concerning military forces and weapons being organised on United States soil for the invasion of Cuba.

Mr. Heath: A number of allegations of a general character were made by the Cuban and Soviet delegations in the First Committee of the General Assembly at the United Nations to the effect that the invasion of Cuba was mounted from United States territory and that the invaders had been trained and equipped by the United States Government. These were analysed and answered by the United States delegate. The full record of the debates on this subject at the United Nations is being placed in the Library.

Mr. Shinwell: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these allegations have been substantiated, and indeed admitted even, by President Kennedy, who has now declared that he accepts full responsibility for what happened? In view of these circumstances, do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, will make it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not condone that action but deplore it?

Mr. Heath: If the right hon. Member will read the report of the speeches I have mentioned, he will find a wide variety of allegations about what happened. Mr. Stevenson, the United States delegate, dealt with them individually and demolished them. It is not for me to comment, because we have no information other than that provided by the delegates to the United Nations.

Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that these charges, correct or not, have very grave implications? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal, last week, after Mr. Stevenson had spoken, declared that they did

not know what the facts were? In this situation, is there not an overwhelming case for having an impartial inquiry by the United Nations into the facts, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested on Thursday? Or is it the case that Her Majesty's Government do not want to know the truth?

Mr. Heath: On the Cuban situation the United Nations has taken its action upon the resolution it passed. We propose to leave it there.

Mr. Shinwell: If weapons and forces of a military character were not organised on United States soil for the invasion of Cuba, would the right hon. Gentleman indicate where they were organised—in which country they were organised?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member has his own methods of finding information on these matters. Her Majesty's Government have absolutely no responsibility in these matters at all.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will propose under Articles 10 and 66 of the United Nations Charter that the General Assembly should raise an international fund, both from private sources and by contributions from the Governments of member States of one tenth of 1 per cent. of their defence budgets, to assist the Cuban Government to make good the material damage sustained through the recent fighting.

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the fact that Cuba has suffered grievous loss both in lives and property as a result, not of a rising inside Cuba but of an invasion mounted outside, would it not be politic to show some concern for the losses caused and to try to convey the impression that the West is not indifferent to what has happened, and at least, on the plane of humanitarian relief, to try to create a better atmosphere and to bring the United Nations into the picture in the relations between Cuba and her neighbours?

Mr. Heath: I do not think it would be an appropriate use of these Articles in the United Nations Charter to adopt the suggestion the hon. Member has made.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the idea contained in this Question is rather a good one? Should not it be applied much more widely, as, for example, in the cases of Hungary and Laos?

Mr. Heath: It might also be applied to those people who have been forced to leave Cuba because of the régime there.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he authorised the text of the speech by Her Majesty's Government's representative on the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 19th April in support of the Argentine resolution; and if he will instruct his representative to propose at the United Nations an inquiry into the responsibility for the recent fighting in Cuba and into means for preventing a recurrence.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he authorised the text of the speech by Her Majesty's Government's representative on the Political Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on 19th April supporting the Argentine resolution.

Mr. Heath: It is not practicable in the course of debates at the United Nations for Her Majesty's Government to authorise in advance in each case the texts of speeches made by the United Kingdom representative. I would like to assure the House that the speech in question has received our full approval. As regards the last part of the Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), I would refer to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 24th April.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the speech has received full Government approval, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that its text shows that our representative at the Assembly was either blissfully ignorant of what has been happening in the United States over a period of months, or alternatively, that he was talking hypocritically? In view of that fact and his inability, evidently, to make up his mind, will the right hon. Gentleman give him a definite instruction to proceed as soon as possible to get the United Nations to move and to institute an inquiry into the invasion of

Cuba which the right hon. Gentleman supports?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this occasion the British representative said that the Government's policy was based on accepting the word of the U.S. Administration that they had nothing to do with the Cuban invasion? Does not he know that it has since been confirmed that not only did the Central Intelligence Agency organise, mount and launch this invasion, but actually put into custody the so-called leaders of the so-called revolutionary council in New York so that they should not interfere with the operation? In those circumstances, would not he instruct Her Majesty's representative to show a little more courage and realism and not to make this country appear contemptible and jeopardise world peace by appeasement, political cowardice and moral turpitude?

Mr. Heath: I cannot accept any of the statements of the hon. Member.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will draw to the attention of the Security Council, under Article 34 of the Charter, the preparations in Guatemala, Louisiana and Florida for an attack on Cuba as creating a situation which endangers the maintenance of international peace and security.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will propose at the United Nations General Assembly that an impartial and authoritative international committee be appointed by the United Nations to investigate the origins of the armed landings in Cuba, the sources of the supplies in men, money, arms, equipment and transport, and where and under what auspices such men were trained.

Mr. Heath: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 24th April.

Mr. Rankin: Since earlier today the right hon. Gentleman said that he was proceeding according to the Argentine resolution, may I ask if he is aware


that one of the signatories to that resolution, the delegate from Uruguay, has already said that the Organisation of American States has done nothing because it can do nothing? In view of that fact, is not it important that the right hon. Gentleman should pursue with speed the feeling on both sides of this House that there should be an inquiry by the United Nations into this whole business?

Mr. Heath: The Organisation of American States is able to act under the Charter according to the Article dealing with regional organisations.

Mr. M. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are not prepared to urge an inquiry into how the invasion last week took place, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government are now making representations to the United States Government that the offence should not be repeated?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Heath: There is no question of making representations to the United States Government on this matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Did not this trouble start when the United States allowed Errol Flynn and other Americans to interfere when Castro seized power?

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman make as strong representations to the United States as the United States made to us at the time of Suez?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAOS

Mr. Healey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the negotiations for a settlement in Laos.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a further statement on the Laotian situation.

Mr. Heath: The appeal by the two Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference for a cease-fire was conveyed to the two sides in Laos on 24th April. All the parties concerned in Laos have now issued statements welcoming this appeal. I understand that attempts are now being made to arrange a preliminary meeting,

between representatives of the forces engaged, to fix the time that the ceasefire will come into force.
The invitation to the Prime Minister of India to reconvene the International Commission and invitations to a conference in Geneva were also issued on 24th April. Members of the Commission are now assembling in New Delhi. We hope to receive acceptances for the conference in due course.

Mr. Healey: While very much welcoming the progress which has been made with this problem in the last few days, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal two questions? First, further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the other day, at precisely what stage does the International Commission enter Laos and on whose invitation? Is it permitted to enter Laos as soon as it is convened in Delhi by the Indian Prime Minister, or does it have to wait until somebody or other inside Laos announces that a cease-fire has in fact taken place? Secondly, is it yet agreed how the State of Laos shall be represented at the fourteen-nation Conference and, if it is not yet so agreed, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards this problem?

Mr. Heath: The arrangement about the Control Commission is that its members will assemble in Delhi and then meet to discuss what action they should take and then put their proposals, as a result of their discussions, to the two Co-Chairmen and then ask the two Co-Chairmen for instructions.
The general proposal is that if a ceasefire has been arranged—as we hope it will have been by then, as the Commission will possibly have its first meeting on 28th April—the Commission should then go to Laos, of course by negotiation with the authorities and forces there, in order to supervise the cease-fire. The representation of the Government of Laos is a matter for the members themselves to arrange. It is our hope that by the time the Conference meets there will be a broadly based Government in Laos which will be able to represent Laos at the Conference.

Mr. Warbey: Does not this favourable development in Laos show how effective the influence of this country can be in international affairs when it is prepared


to stand up firmly against an ally pursuing a dangerous and foolish course?

Mr. Heath: In these difficult matters we have used our influence with all the countries concerned to the best of our ability in order to secure these arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTUGAL (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent requests have been received from the Government of Portugal for the supply of arms; and what replies have been sent by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Heath: It is not in the public interest to disclose whether or not requests for arms have been received from foreign Governments, nor to state the extent, if any, to which particular requests will be met.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that if any such request is received, we will insist that these arms are not used in either Mozambique or Angola?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. The principles governing the way in which these matters are negatiated between Governments are of very long standing and well known and were published to the House on 21st January, 1959. We shall adhere to those principles in this case.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not time that we looked again at these principles if they mean that British-supplied arms are to be used in colonial aggression in Angola?

Mr. S. Silverman: Without dissenting from what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the confidential nature of the course of the negotiations, is he really suggesting that the people of this country have no interest and no right to know whether the Government, in their name, are supplying arms to any nation or not for a particular purpose at any time? Does he think that it is not in the public interest and that the public does not have a right to know what is being done in its name?

Mr. Heath: Apart from the fact that there are many transactions of this kind,

some of major items and some very small, equipment used by various forces is being supplied through commercial channels, and it is not in the public interest that the whole matter should be public, nor would the Governments placing the orders necessarily wish to have the information published.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN FINANCIAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Hirst: asked the Lord Privy Seal how much of the funds allotted to Great Britain under the Financial Agreement with Egypt have been paid out as a result of assessed Egyptianisation claims and as a result of assessed claims arising out of sequestrated property, respectively.

Mr. Heath: Up to midday on 19th April, 1961, the Foreign Compensation Commission had made interim payments amounting to £6,256,037 in respect of 338 claims for Egyptianised property, and £341,880 in respect of 317 claims for losses arising on sequestrated property.

Mr. Hirst: Would my right hon. Friend agree that that absolutely underlines the case which I have so often made and which I must make again—that the repayments are totally inadequate out of the orignal fund of £27½ million, and are undermining confidence in the Government with the matter going on year after year?

Mr. Heath: As I have explained before, the reason for the gap between the amount so far paid out and the total compensation is due to the many claims for desequestration which have still to be made and which can be met only as property is taken back by the owners, which is bound to take a certain amount of time.

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONGO (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal what resolutions on the subject of the Congo were voted on at the United


Nations General Assembly; which delegations voted in favour, which against, and which abstained, in each case; and how the British delegation voted.

Mr. Heath: Three resolutions on the Congo were adopted by the General Assembly on 15th April. Two of them, sponsored by a group of Afro-Asian powers, dealt with Belgian and other foreign personnel, and with a Commission to investigate the death of Mr. Lumumba. These were adopted respectively by 61 votes in favour, 5 against, and 33 abstentions and 45 votes in favour, 3 against, and 49 abstentions. Our delegation abstained on both resolutions. The third successful resolution, sponsored by another group of Afro-Asian powers, was based largely on the recommendations of the United Nations Conciliation Commission. It was adopted by 60 votes in favour, 16 against and 23 abstentions. We voted for this resolution.
A resolution sponsored by the Soviet Union, demanding the recall of the Congolese Parliament within twenty-one days, was rejected by the Assembly by 29 votes in favour to 53 against, with 17 abstentions. Our delegation voted against it.
The details of votes cast by other delegations to the United Nations are given in the verbatim record of proceedings, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Brockway: While regretting the abstention of the United Kingdom representative on the first two resolutions and applauding his opposition to the Russian resolution, may I nevertheless ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the third resolution did not give great prominence to the need for the reconvening of the elected Parliament of the Congo? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give every possible aid towards that reconvening so that the elected representatives of the Congo can decide their own Government and their own form of their State?

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. We have always believed that the Parliament of the Congo should be reassembled as soon as conditions permit. We voted against the Soviet resolution because it specified the very limited time of twenty-one days. Otherwise, we recognise the desirability of Parliament's meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH WEST AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Lord Privy Seal which delegations at the United Nations General Assembly on 7th April voted in favour of the resolution condemning apartheid in South West Africa, which voted against and which abstained; and how the British delegation voted.

Mr. Heath: I presume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the resolution adopted on 7th April on the recommendation of the Fourth Committee. The substance of the resolution concerns implementation of the Mandate by the Union Government and the refusal of the Union Government to permit the United Nations Committee on South West Africa to visit the mandated territory in order to investigate the situation there. Eighty-three members voted in favour, none voted against and nine—including the United Kingdom—abstained. The hon. Gentleman will find details of the voting in Document A/PV 979 which is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the indignation which will be felt by many people in this country that the United Kingdom representative should have abstained on this resolution, particularly when before the meeting of the United Nations the House of Commons voted, without dissent, a resolution urging that the terms of the United Nations proposal should be supported by the United Kingdom?

Mr. Heath: We have often debated this question of the Motion which was before the House last December. We again explained our reasons for thinking that the United Nations resolution went beyond the powers of the United Nations over the mandate. Our second reason was that this question had been referred to the International Court.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS CHARTER (ARTICLE 2 (7))

Mr. Longden: asked the Lord Privy Seal why, in view of Article 2 (7) of the Charter of the United Nations, the United Kingdom delegate to the United Nations voted on 10th April in favour of a resolution condemning the Government of the Union of South Africa for its racial policies.

Mr. Heath: As the United Kingdom delegate has explained, the importance we attach to the proper observance of Article 2 (7) of the Charter remains un-diminished. The policy of apartheid is, however, the deliberate adoption, retention and development of a policy specifically based on total racial discrimination.
It is no longer possible to argue that the practice of apartheid does not have grave international repercussion. This is particularly true within Africa but the Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference demonstrated that the effects have spread far beyond the boundaries of that continent. It is, therefore, in a category of its own. These circumstances have convinced us that apartheid can no longer be regarded as a matter to which Article 2 (7) of the Charter applies.
The House will have noted that the United Kingdom delegate was instructed to abstain on two paragraphs which might have implied that collective action should be taken by the United Nations or that the situation in South Africa is one which is a threat to the peace.
The United Kingdom voted against a second resolution proposing collective action against South Africa.

Mr. Longden: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in Article 2 (7) which deals with international repercussions? Does this mean that Her Majesty's Government are placing their own gloss upon this Article so as to make it mean that matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State shall be considered to have international repercussions thereby making intervention justified, so long as they are debated often enough at the United Nations? Would not my right hon. Friend agree, upon reflection, that this is a most unwise departure from the letter and spirit of Article 2 (7), without whose inclusion in the Charter many nations would not have signed it?

Mr. Heath: No, Sir. What I am saying is that in the view of the Government the ramifications and international repercussions of apartheid are of such a character and of such a nature that we now believe that they go beyond what can be said to be essentially a domestic interest of a country, under Article 2 (7). I recognise that this is a controversial matter, but it has come before the United

Nations in a similar form on other subjects. This is a decision on which judgments have to be made to the best of one's ability.

Mr. Marquand: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this United Nations resolution was entirely in line with the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 22nd March? Would it not, therefore, have been entirely wrong for the United Kingdom to abstain or to vote against the resolution? Does it not represent the views of the vast majority of Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom? Is not this a major question in international affairs at this time, and would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been absolutely wrong for Her Majesty's Government to have taken any attitude other than that which they adopted?

Mr. Heath: I hope that I have explained to the House the reasons why we took this decision, which was in line with the statement given to the House by the Prime Minister on the occasion mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST BERLIN (FUTURE)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent proposals Her Majesty's Government have made on the future of West Berlin.

Mr. Heath: None, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not time that the Government gave their attention to this subject, particularly in view of the importance Mr. Khrushchev attaches to it? Might there not now be put forward proposals for the whole of the city, possibly coupled with a proposal that some institutions of the United Nations should be moved there?

Mr. Heath: I shall take note of that suggestion and others which have been put forward. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that settlement in Berlin must be part of an overall settlement.

HOUSE OF LORDS (JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE)

The Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): In the course of the debate on 13th April on the Report of the Committee of Privileges on the Stansgate case, my right


hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I indicated that, while the Government did not favour the appointment of a Committee to consider the single issue arising in that case, we would consider the possibility of a broader inquiry.
There is, in the Government's mind, no doubt as to the need to maintain an efficient Second Chamber. The representatives of all three parties who took part in the Conference of Party Leaders, in 1948, expressed themselves as united in their desire to see the House of Lords continue to play its proper part in the Legislature. The White Paper containing their agreed statement shows that, although the Conference failed to reach agreement on the question of powers, some progress was made on the question of composition of the House of Lords.
The Government have now decided that consideration of the composition of the House of Lords should be undertaken. The House will recognise that such an inquiry is broader than that asked for in the debate on 13th April.
At the same time, the Government think that there should be inquiry into certain anomalies in our constitution. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General drew attention to some of them in the debate on 13th April. A Scottish peer who is not elected as a representative peer is not eligible for election to this House and cannot vote in elections to this House. An Irish peer can be elected a Member of this House, but cannot sit in the House of Lords or vote in an election to this House. A peeress in her own right may vote in a parliamentary election, but cannot sit in the House of Lords and is generally thought to be disqualified from membership of this House.
The Government thinks that these matters should be considered.
There is also the question of surrender of peerages, whether in order to become a Member of this House, or for any other reason. This involves consideration of a number of other questions. For instance, should the surrender be for life or should it extinguish the peerage? If for life, should the title pass immediately to the heir? Should it be possible to surrender the right to sit in the House of Lords and, while retaining the title, sit in the House of Commons?
Finally, we feel that any review of the composition of the other place must have regard to the question of providing some assistance to enable more peers, without unreasonable personal sacrifice, to play an active part in the business of that place.
The Government's conclusion is that it is desirable that all these matters should be considered together. We have given much thought to the form of an inquiry and we think that the appropriate body to consider them is a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
We therefore intend to move for the appointment of a Joint Select Committee with the following terms of reference:
To consider, having regard among other things to the need to maintain an efficient Second Chamber

(a) the composition of the House of Lords
(b) whether any and, if so, what changes should be made in the rights of peers and peeresses in their own right in regard to eligibility to sit in either House of Parliament and to vote at parliamentary elections; and whether any and if so what changes should be made in the law relating to the surrender of peerages
(c) whether it would be desirable to introduce the principle of remuneration for members of the House of Lords and, if so, subject to what conditions and to make recommendations."

In order to assist the Committee, we have already put in hand the preparation of material which the Committee may require for its consideration of the matters referred to them.
The House will see that these terms of reference are wide enough to enable the Joint Select Committee to consider all the matters to which I have referred. A Motion will be tabled shortly.

Mr. Gaitskell: The proposal that a Joint Select Committee should be appointed to consider the rights of those who inherit peerages to renounce them is at least a first faltering step on the part of the Government towards removing the absurd anomalies to which attention was drawn in the recent debate, and it constitutes, unquestionably, a victory for Mr. Benn—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Mr. Speaker—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that the hon. Baronet is raising a point of order.

Sir K. Pickthorn: Mr. Speaker. Is not this string of assumptions and arguments a gross breach of procedure?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a gross abuse. We have had this before. I think that some licence may be permitted and has, in the past, been permitted, in particular to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House will agree that the Leader of the House has made a statement of some constitutional importance—

Sir K. Pickthorn: Oh, yes—

Hon. Members: Shut up.

Mr. Gaitskell: —and that the Leader of the Opposition must be allowed to make a few comments not purely in the form of questions—although I shall put one or two questions in a moment.
I believe that, as far as it goes, this step constitutes a victory for Mr. Wedgwood Benin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense. "] It certainly would not have happened had it not been for the struggle Mr. Benn put up to remove the sons of peers from their present disabilities. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if Mr. Benn's fight in Bristol has produced this result, his victory there will, we hope, produce even better results?
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the following questions. Why should not the inquiry which it is proposed should take place be limited to this question of the disabilities from which peers at present suffer in respect of the House of Commons, and the possibility of renouncing peerages? Is it not the case—as, indeed, the recent debate showed—that there is widespread agreement on this matter? Is it not also the case that, despite repeated efforts, there has never been agreement on the wider issues which are also to be included in the terms of reference?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is highly desirable that the question of the rights of peers should be settled urgently? Is he aware that this is the case not only because of Mr. Benn's position, but because, according to my information, the Conservative candidate in the Bristol, South-East by-election is himself the heir to a Scottish peerage

and, this being so, in the very unlikely event of his at any time being declared returned, this difficulty will arise? May I ask—

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any limit that you can ascribe to the latitude allowed to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in asking questions, which one thought had to be elucidatory, after a statement by a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am capable of defining the precise limit. If I am challenged about the rule, the rule is that a limited number of questions, and nothing else at all, is permitted; but I find on looking at authority that the House has been slightly soft-hearted towards the Leader of the Opposition, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will not exceed the bounds of indulgence properly extended.

Mr. C. Pannell: Arising from that point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not the fact that, particularly from 1945, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) certainly went far beyond anything that my right hon. Friend has done? Was it not generally agreed in the Select Committee on Procedure that if any rules on questions were ever ruined they were ruined by the right hon. Member for Woodford—with the acquiescence of the other side? Has it not been stated by at least three Speakers that the Leader of the Opposition is in a peculiar position—[Laughter.]
That word, Mr. Speaker, had its appropriateness at the time, in so far as the right hon. Member for Woodford always considered that he was a law unto himself. In any case, the Leader of the Opposition is part of the House, and, a considerable statement having been made by the Leader of the House, may we have it clearly understood that the Opposition will not be at a disadvantage in these procedural matters?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anybody will be put at a disadvantage. When I am challenged, I state the rule—and I have. I also said that it is a fact that some indulgence has been occasionally allowed to the Leader of the Opposition. If it is said that a certain right


hon. Gentleman ruined the rules, I would not have thought that even that example was a reason for ruining them further.

Mr. Gaitskell: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like merely to say, first, that I am putting a series of questions at the moment, and that in anything I say I am certainly not exceeding what was said by successive Leaders of the Conservative Opposition on occasions of this kind. I hope that those hon. Members who interrupted me will consult the precedents before they do so again.
I was asking whether the terms of reference could be altered so that the inquiry could be confined to what is most urgent, and to what there is most likely to be agreement about, namely, the second part of the terms of reference.
Secondly, I would ask whether, if there is to be a wider inquiry, the terms of reference had not better be a good deal wider still. How can a Joint Select Committee consider the composition of the Second Chamber without considering what functions, if any, that Chamber should have? Further, how can the Joint Select Committee really seriously consider this without considering whether the existing powers should not be curtailed? I therefore ask the Government whether they will give further consideration to these terms of reference on the lines that I have indicated.

Mr. Butler: I will do my best to answer the specific questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman. First, on the question of the limited nature of the terms of reference, and the request that these should be limited further than the broad terms we have suggested, I adhere to what I said in the debate on 13th April. I then said:
If we are to look into the matter of House of Lords reform, we must do it on a much broader basis."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.573.]
That is the view of the Government, and we are adhering to what I said in the course of that debate.
That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point. In answer to the point about settling the matter urgently—namely, the reference in paragraph (b) of the terms of reference to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention in his intervention—that, I think, must be a matter for the Joint Select Committee. This House cannot limit or in any way impose upon the

terms of reference of the Joint Select Committee, which must be the master of its own procedure. Naturally, I would wish to see it set about its task, but I can give no undertaking beforehand, as that would not be constitutionally right
As to widening the terms of reference, this is the opposite to the right hon. Gentleman's opening gambit. It is not intended to deal with powers. We have examined the precedents in this matter and we consider that there will not be any fruitful result from an examination of powers. We consider that the question should be restricted to the composition of the Upper House.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Leader of the House give one single reason why this inquiry should go beyond the point of the position of peers and their right to renounce peerages? Can he give any reason why that should not be considered on its own, quite apart from the wider issues on which, as well he knows, agreement is extremely unlikely? Is he aware that if the Government persist in these terms of reference the only conclusion to be drawn is that they wish to defer indefinitely the question of the rights of peers to renounce?

Mr. Butler: The latter conclusion cannot be drawn from what I said. That is not so at all. What can be drawn from my previous speech on 13th April is that I then said that
…the Government, in consultation with my hon. and right hon. Friends, might wish to go further in the reform of the House of Lords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1961; Vol. 638, c.571.]
We have held these consultations, and we find that it is preferred that a broader canvas should be envisaged. That is what I said in my speech, and the Government have been quite consistent in adhering to that.

Viscount Lambton: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pleasure his statement gives to certain hon. Members on this side? Is he further aware of the very great pleasure it gives to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) to be able wholeheartedly to endorse the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler: I rise on one of the rare occasions in the public life of this country to find it an amicable occasion when


the lion can lie down with the lamb. The Government's attitude to this matter has never altered. In the course of my speech on 13th April, certain doubts were expressed by the leader of the Opposition, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), as to whether what I said envisaged that we would go further. That was intended to give the impression that we should go further, and now we are going further with the broad canvas.

Mr. Grimond: As breaches are being healed right and left this afternoon—and centre—would it not be a courteous gesture by the Leader of the House if he were to send even a short telegram of congratulation to Mr. Wedgwood Benn—a short one on behalf of the whole House? May I ask, also, whether the terms of reference are wide enough to allow the Joint Select Committee to consider, if it so wishes, the total abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords?

Mr. Butler: I cannot go into detail, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the word "composition" means what it says, namely, the composition of the House of Lords. If anyone wishes to adduce evidence, or appear before the Joint Select Committee with views relating to the composition, I presume that he would be in order.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn himself sent me a telegram a day or two ago asking me what the Government intended to do, so I sent a very polite telegram in reply asking him to await my statement this afternoon.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the questions posed to the Joint Select Committee will have the support, I am sure, of the majority of the people? But is he further aware that the juxtaposition of the statement with the efforts made by Mr. Wedgwood Benn are particularly unfortunate because, if one takes the long-term view, one can see that the Report of the Joint Select Committee may well, in some way, affect the Constitution, and the situation of the constitutional monarchy itself.
In these circumstances, will my right hon. Friend stand firm in letting the Joint Select Committee take its appropriate time? Is he aware that it is not right

that this important matter should be approached in a mood of either having sympathy for Mr. Wedgwood Benn, or being sad that Lord Hailsham is not also in this House? Will my right hon. Friend stand firm in his intention that this matter will be looked at as a long-term project by the Joint Select Committee, without any reference to or contact with the by-election in Bristol, South-East?

Mr. Butler: I think that whatever may emerge from that by-election will occur long before the Joint Select Committee can really get to work. I think that it can be taken that a Joint Select Committee is the most weighty of all bodies to which either House can address its affairs. I would imagine that it would give proper consideration to all the major issues, including the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), namely, the future of the monarchy, which I would not regard as being in jeopardy as a result of this procedure.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us, whatever the reason, consider that the time is appropriate to consider the composition and powers of the House of Lords? I therefore wish to ask two questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he meant when he referred to the need for an efficient Second Chamber? Does that imply the continuance of the hereditary principle? Secondly, in the event of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses coming to the conclusion that the hereditary principle should be abandoned, will Her Majesty's Government accept it?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by an efficient Second Chamber in relation to the hereditary principle. In a Joint Select Committee the Government can express their view. The conclusions of the Committee are arrived at after deliberation by its members under the Lord Chairman. I could not come to a conclusion. I could only state my opinion that the abolition of the hereditary principle would be disastrous to the Upper House.

Sir P. Agnew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the steps he has announced to be taken will give very wide satisfaction not only to the great majority of hon. Members in this House, but also to


a far wider public outside? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the terms of reference are restricted to there being no consideration of powers, the public outside will be mindful of the fact that, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition said today, when powers were last considered they were considered by the Opposition, who were then the Labour Government of the day, by bringing in a Parliamentary Bill without any consultation at all and forcing it through with their majority in the House? If co-operation should fail on this occasion, Her Majesty's Government have the greatest responsibility, following the Committee's Report, to bring in the appropriate Measure of reform which they consider desirable.

Mr. Butler: I must make it clear that the ultimate decision about legislation or any action which would follow on the Report of the Committee must be at the discretion of Her Majesty's Government. For the rest, I am obliged for what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Driberg: As the Joint Select Committee is to be concerned with composition, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that one strictly relevant matter will be considered—that is, the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords? If it be thought still desirable that there should be ecclesiastical representation as such, will there be some examination of the possibility that there should be representation of the Free Churches and of other communions, and not only of the Church of England?

Mr. Butler: This must be a matter primarily for consideration by the Joint Select Committee when it is set up. No doubt evidence can or will be submitted to the Committee on points of this kind, none of which, in my view, would be excluded.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I warmly welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend. Can he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to see that the Joint Select Committee is made aware of the fact that there are many of us who believe that privileges, whether they be inherited or granted in a person's lifetime, very often carry with them duties, sometimes irksome duties? Will my right hon. Friend see that whatever else the Joint Select Committee is advised to do by Her

Majesty's Government, it is not advised to make it easy for the duties to be surrendered?

Mr. Butler: In general, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the question of power? Does he not realise that there will be a great difference of views about the future function and composition of the House of Lords as long as it is overwhelmingly Conservative in complexion and, therefore, has the power to hold up legislation—and, in fact, has tried to hold up legislation—which may be put through by a Labour Government? Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to limit this examination—and this is the fundamental issue—to the single question of the renunciation of peerages, does he not consider that, in the interests of democratic Government in this country, it is fairer that the Joint Select Committee should be able to consider the whole of the functions of the House of Lords as well as its composition?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As is well known to any constitutional examiner, the powers of the House of Lords are nowadays comparatively limited. When the hon. Gentleman intervenes to say that it is the composition of the House of Lords which is not satisfactory from his point of view, to that extent the fact that we are discussing composition, and have referred that to the Joint Select Committee, should be one source of satisfaction to him. At any rate, the Government have definitely decided that it would not be proper for the powers to be reviewed on this occasion.

Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint anybody as a member of this Joint Select Committee who does not believe in the continuance of the House of Lords at all?

Mr. Butler: The Joint Select Committee will have to represent both sides, both here and in another place. I do not doubt that the usual discussions will take place and that various claims of the type mentioned by the hon. Member will be considered?

Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to the last answer but one given by the right hon. Gentleman, is he willing to say that the


Government will consider with an open mind the question whether the House of Lords should have a majority which might reflect the majority of the House of Commons?

Mr. Butler: All questions governed by the word "composition" will be in order. I cannot go further than that today.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it would be in order for the Joint Select Committee, if it so decides, to make a preliminary Report on matters which are clearly the subject of agreement, in advance of the other issues to be discussed? Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider any alteration or amendment to the terms of reference which he announced this afternoon?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The Government have decided. I informed the right hon. Gentleman of the nature of the decision that we had taken in this respect.
The question of a preliminary Report, must be a matter for the Committee itself. After appointing a Joint Select Committee, this House cannot remove from it the questions of procedure which it will command.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this matter now.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Northern Ireland (Economic Development)

Mr. Stratton Mills: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the economic development of Northern Ireland, and move a Resolution.

Youth Service (Albemarle Report)

Mr. Hunter: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the Albermarle Report on the Youth Service, and move a Resolution

Fire Services

Mr. R. Harris: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 12th May, I shall call attention to the shortage of recruits for the British Fire Services, to the depressed state of pay in the British Fire Services, to the need for an independent inquiry into the economic status of the firemen, and that I shall move a Resolution which I hope hon. Members will turn up and support.

RAILWAYS (CARRIAGE OF MAIL)

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Dan Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require railway authorities to give greater protection to the carrying of Her Majesty's mail.
I ask for leave to bring in this modest Bill because I believe that in the last few years public confidence in this essential service has been badly shaken, Indeed, my own confidence—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would hon. Members give to the hon. Member who is asking leave to bring in this Bill such a hearing as they would like to be given themselves in similar circumstances?

Mr. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that I had reached the point where I was saying that my confidence as well as the confidence of the public had been shaken because of my experience with certain railway guards.
I should like to tell the House that on coming from Manchester to London, and going from my compartment to the luncheon car, I passed the grilles where mailbags are kept and I found that a child could open them without difficulty. There was no guard there. On my return the guard was there, and I asked him what would prevent me from taking the bags while he was away. The man, who was rather shaken by my frank approach, admitted that the position was not satisfactory. I asked him what he would suggest, from his experience, to remedy this quite unsatisfactory state of affairs, He told me that, in his opinion, the grilles should be padlocked.
As a consequence, and because I am apprehensive of these continuing robberies, I put a Question to the Minister in December, 1960. It was along the lines that I have already indicated, and the Minister, in reply, said that provisions would be made that would incorporate these ideas. I have to say, with a real sense of dismay, that about four months later, in, I believe, March or April of this year, a further robbery was perpetrated and that in the process one of the railway guards was subjected to injury. I believe that I can deduce from that that the suggestions that I made in December, which were accepted by the

Minister, had not been put into force. Therefore, I feel that something practical should be done about it.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House statistics which, I am sure, will convey to the House and to the public the concern that is properly felt. In the fourteen years from 1947–48 to 1960–61, mail bags lost numbered 8,090 and the money involved in the loss amounted to the very appreciable total of £287,071. In addition, there have been 10 further mailbag robberies where the total losses, for some reason or another, are not available. I should make it quite clear that the amount that I have mentioned could be very much greater.
I think that I should bring to the attention of the House that the number of staff injured during those years totalled 33. While this state of affairs is allowed to continue, I would suggest most emphatically that railway guards are subjected to unnecessary danger. The entry of robbers into a mail van is prevented only by the presence of the guard. Consequently, they conclude that if they can remove the guard their entry will be uninterrupted. I would emphasise that, apart from the sanctity of Her Majesty's mail, there is the question of the prevention of injury to people who, I believe, are performing a very fine service. Also, the inconvenience and annoyance to the public by virtue of these losses must be quite incalculable. I would not care to say to what extent, but I am sure that this loss of mail causes interruption of business and a great deal of inconvenience and annoyance.
The purpose of my very modest Bill—and I use the word "modest" quite meaningfully—is to tighten up the present unsatisfactory position. That, I believe, can be done by the provision at railway stations of unloading and loading areas which have definitely restricted access, and by better security procedure, with a sensible multiplicity of trained personnel.
With regard to the provisions inside the train and on the grilles in question, I suggest, and I make this a provision in the Bill, that there shall be containers which will resist attack to the locks, walls, floor and roof. They must be robust enough to present a real safe-breaking problem and anchored securely


to the floor. Additional safeguards would be advisable, such as a warning device, visible and audible, when unauthorised interference with the container was made and that it should operate inside the train and externally. An alternative to conventional locking could be achieved by electro-magnetic means. I am reliably informed by trained technicians that the moment these locks are interfered with by unauthorised persons the alarm would be raised.
I am not pretending for a moment that this modest Bill would effect 100 per cent. cure. I do, however, suggest, notwithstanding the need for secrecy in these matters—I say that because when the Minister replied to Questions which I put on this point last week he said that there was a need for secrecy—that, who-ever

knows about these measures, it cannot alter the fact that they would provide a most powerful deterrent. I believe that my Bill could hope to achieve, notwithstanding knowledge made public, a greater sense of security to the Royal Mail and to the staff of both British Railways and the Post Office.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. D. Jones, Mr. Iorwerth Thomas, and Mr. G. Elfed Davies.

RAILWAYS (CARRIAGE OF MAIL)

Bill to require railway authorities to give greater protection to the carrying of Her Majesty's mail, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 9th June, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]

Orders of the Day — LAND DRAINAGE (RECOMMITTED) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 21st February].

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

New Clause.—(DRAINAGE RATES—DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE POUNDAGE.)

5
(1) The amount per pound mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section (Drainage rates—basis of assessment) of this Act shall be determined, as nearly as may be, by applying the fraction arrived at in accordance with the following provisions of this section (in this section referred to as the relative fraction) to the amount per pound (of annual value) at which the drainage rate is assessed under subsection (4) of section twenty-four of the Act of 1930.


(2) The relative fraction shall be stated in the notice of the rate given under section twenty-seven of the Act of 1930, and the notice shall be conclusive evidence that the fraction stated in it has been calculated in accordance with this section.


10
(3) The relative fraction shall be arrived at by dividing—


(a) the aggregate of the annual values of the relevant hereditaments in the internal drainage district; by


(b) the aggregate of the rateable values of those hereditaments.


15
(4) For the purposes of this section—


(a) the rateable value of any hereditament shall be taken to be the value which, at the date on which the drainage rate is made, is shown as its rateable value in the valuation list in force for the period for which the drainage rate is made:


20
(b) the annual value of any hereditament shall be taken to be its annual value as last stated before the said date in any assessment under Schedule A signed and allowed under section thirty-five of the Income Tax Act, 1952, or under that section as applied by the Fifth Schedule to that Act (apportioned where the hereditament forms part only of any land assessed under Schedule A).


25
(5) An internal drainage board may from time to time require the surveyors of taxes for their district to furnish to them, on payment at such rate as the Treasury may determine, such particulars of assessments as may be required to enable theboard to calculate the relative fraction.


30
(6) In this section "relevant hereditament", in relation to any drainage rate, means land for which a rateable value is shown in the valuation list in force for the period for which the rate is made and which is or forms part of land assessed to income tax under Schedule A; and references in this section to the rateable value of any hereditament shall be construed, where that value differs from the net annual value,  as referring to the net annual value.—[Mr. Soames.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.11 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This is a machinery Clause designed to give effect to the provisions in the Clause which we discussed at the last meeting of the Standing Committee. On that occasion we had a long discussion and it was decided that the Clause then under consideration was a suitable addition to the Bill. This Clause will put it into operation.
I would remind the Committee that the object of that Clause was to transfer the basis on which drainage rates are raised from Schedule A values to rateable values in order to meet a point most forcibly put at various times particularly

by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). This Clause provides the machinery enabling us, as it were, to translate from Schedule A value, into rateable value.
To obtain the fraction by which the poundage has to be adjusted, the drainage boards concerned will compare the total net annual values shown in the valuation list with the total of the Schedule A values on the same hereditaments. The resulting fraction will be applied to the poundage paid on rateable value, thus bringing its yield into line with that paid on Schedule A on which it was formerly based.
Perhaps it would be easier if I gave the Committee a quick example of how this will work. For instance, in a particular drainage district the total rateable valuation of property on the valuation list might be £70,000 and the total Schedule A value of the property might, and probably would be, about £30,000. The fraction to be applied to the poundage of a drainage rate where it is charged on the basis of the rateable value would be three-sevenths. So, if an occupier were paying 7s. in the £ on Schedule A, he would be paying 3s. in the £ on rateable value. That is all this Clause is designed to do, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. May I say by way of preface that we notice that the British Farmer, the journal of the National Farmers' Union, complained of the irritating tactics of the Opposition. This is grossly unfair. We are discussing new Clauses introduced by the Government which the whole Committee would agree are of great complexity and importance. They introduce new methods. Having said that, and being reminded of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition at the conclusion of our previous discussion—and not wishing to emulate Oliver Cromwell—I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the present Clause is consequential on the one we previously discussed. It is a machinery Clause and for that reason I do not wish to traverse the arguments we had on the earlier Clause.
The Minister would agree that this is a difficult Clause. During our last debate I said that I had read the Clause fourteen times and was not fully satisfied that I had comprehended it. When the Government introduce a Clause at this stage they should provide an explanatory note to show its meaning. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his illustration, but had the Clauses been in the Bill, we should have had reference to them in the Explanatory Memorandum. If, on the other hand, the Clauses had been brought by way of Statutory Instrument, we should have had an explanatory note attached in the light of the recommendations of the Select Committee. The Government therefore, should consider when introducing

new matters such as this separately and at a later stage, providing, not only for hon. Members but for the public, an explanation of their purposes. Especially so in this case as, again, we get legisation by reference.
I do not wish to discuss the merits, we considered them when we were considering the earlier Clause, but a point which came out late in our discussions on the earlier Clause was that there have been consultations with the Association of Drainage Authorities. Again, I make the point, which we made in respect of the earlier Clause, that there has not been sufficiently wide consultation regarding these new provisions. Having made these reservations about this Clause I say at once that we accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said that, having discussed the previous Clause, this Clause is a necessarily consequential provision which must be made in view of the acceptance of the earlier Clause.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: In welcoming this new Clause, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can tell the Committee what the measure of payment is likely to be in getting the details of these assessments from the Inland Revenue?

Sir Douglas Glover: I wish to welcome this new Clause. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the provision of an explanatory note. Until my right hon. Friend quoted an example, I had difficulty in understanding how this would work. I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for what I consider a valuable improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I cannot tell my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) what will be the cost of securing the information from the Inland Revenue. This will have to be decided in the light of the amount of work to be done. I am sure that the sum will be moderate and that the service rendered will be good, but I cannot give any idea of the figure. We know what it was under the 1930 Act, but it is too early yet to give any estimate in this case.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and with


my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) that, on the face of it, this new Clause is a complicated provision to add to the Bill at this stage. It took a good deal of working out and all I can plead in mitigation is that it is a provision which is better in the Bill than out; and that this is the only way in which that could be achieved now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 8, to leave out from "1930" to the end of line 9.
The effect of this Amendment is to take out the words and the notice of conclusive evidence that the fraction stated in it has been calculated in accordance with this Section. The Clause, as at present drafted, provides that the fraction shall be stated in the notice of the rate given under Section 27. The Minister is asking that that statement shall be accepted as being conclusive, and shall not be open to challenge. That seems a rather drastic power to be taking and it is for that reason—to elucidate a satisfactory explanation from the Government—that I move this Amendment.

Mr. Soames: I quite appreciate the reason for the hon. Gentleman tabling this Amendment, because it is not until one goes through the Bill with a technical adviser who knows all about its jargon that one appreciates what is proposed by this Clause. I hope that I shall be able to put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
The hon. Gentleman is no doubt thinking that the fractions might vary according to the different hereditaments, from one hereditament to another, within the same internal drainage district, and that, therefore, individuals should be able to appeal against their own particular fraction, perhaps on the ground that that fraction had not been properly worked out.
What happens, in fact, is that these fractions are worked out, not hereditament by hereditament, but over the whole of the drainage district, and the same fraction is applied. It is a matter of mathematics. If, for example, the fraction is three-sevenths, that will be applied to all the

hereditaments within a district and, of course, will be subject to district audit. There will be only one sum done, so to speak, and the question whether that sum is correct will be subject to district audit. I do not think that it would be right for an individual to be able to complain that the figure was not right for his own hereditament, since it applies to the district as a whole

Mr. Willey: I must pursue the point further. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated what I had in mind when he said that this will be dealt with, in due course, by the district auditor. But has he realised that there might be a mistake? After all, a calculation will be made and, although most unlikely, a mistake could occur. My object in raising this point is to clear up the position whereby a ratepayer will not be prejudiced by having no way of satisfying himself about the correctness of the calculation. I can appreciate that over a period of time this would not cause any hardship to anyone because, if the district auditor found that a mistake had, in fact, been made, that mistake would be rectified and an adjustment would be made. Nevertheless, the ratepayer should not be entirely prevented from making inquiries.

Mr. Soames: The calculation will be worked out by the internal drainage district concerned and will be subject to district audit, and no one could judge whether the calculation was right without having access to all the figures. A great deal of arithmetic would have to be done, adding up all the Schedule A values of every hereditament, and so on. I am sure that the responsible bodies concerned will do their homework correctly, that their sums will be right and, after all this has been done, that the district auditor will check to ensure that a mistake has not been made. This, I suggest, will provide adequate protection for the public, and I do not think that this is a case where any particular individual should be able to have the right of appeal.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 24, to leave out from "them" to "such" in line 25.
This Amendment deals with a point similar to the one we discussed in Standing Committee, and there is no need for me to deploy my argument at length. There is fear among some of the drainage boards that they might be put to some expense if this provision remains as it is. It would be far better that this provision of information from the surveyor of taxes should be accepted as an obligation on the surveyors and that the Treasury should bear the cost. This is a case where the Treasury can well bear, without difficulty, a cost that, to some drainage boards, might cause some expense which would otherwise be avoided.
When we discussed this matter in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the provision being made here is in accordance with precedent, but I suggest that this is one case where we might depart from precedent. It might be better to say that, since these provisions are being imposed on drainage boards by the Government and with the will of Parliament, it is for Parliament to ensure that the Treasury bears the consequential expenses of this action. For that reason I am still hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman might be willing to accept the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I support the Amendment. I deplore anything that adds to the cost of these boards and, since I helped to persuade my right hon. Friend, in Standing Committee, to accept an alteration in the way that the drainage rate should be assessed, it seems a little hard that internal drainage boards should incur a charge from the Treasury. Since it is such a small charge, surely it would be better for the Amendment to be accepted.

Mr. Soames: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), but for the reasons I have given several

times in some detail in Standing Committee, on a different Clause, the Government are not able to accept this Amendment.
When this matter was discussed in relation not to inland drainage boards but to river boards, under Clause 7 (6), this was gone into at some length and the arguments were identical. The Committee agreed that this must be left to the river boards and, in the Amendment we are discussing, it is clear that, equally, the matter should be left with the internal drainage boards. It is the standard practice for the Inland Revenue to make charges to public bodies for the services it performs, and charges are already made for information required by drainage boards in assessing drainage rates under the 1930 Act.
This is only a continuation of what is practised, and it is right that the Inland Revenue should make some charge for its services, and then, perhaps, its services will be appreciated to the full. For that reason, I suggest that the Committee should not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Willey: I am disappointed at the lack of support I have received for this constructive proposal. There is a difference between river boards and internal drainage boards and in this case, in my opinion, there is a case for making an exception. But since the right hon. Gentleman would not make an exception in the case of river boards, he is obviously not inclined to make an exception in this case. I have raised the matter, however, and I hope I have given heart to the drainage boards. They have had their feelings expressed in the Committee, but, in view of the response of the right hon. Gentleman, I can do no other than beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE CHARGE ON OWNERS.)

5
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of this Act, where the owner of a chargeable hereditament has made a request under section one hundred and ten of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which provides for the assessment, at their option, of landlords to tax under Schedule A), any drainage charge raised for a period for which the request has effect shall, in the case of that hereditament, be assessed on the owner, and references in Part I of this Act (other than this section) to the occupier and to occupation shall be construed accordingly.


10
(2) Where by virtue of this section a drainage charge is assessed on the owner and he pays the amount due before the expiration of one half of the period for which the charge is raised, the river board shall make to him an allowance equal to ten per cent. of the full amount of the charge.


(3) The owner may recover from the occupier any amount paid by him under this section in respect of a drainage charge which, as between the owner and the occupier, the occupier is liable to pay.


15
(4) A river board may from time to time require the surveyors of taxes for their area to furnish to them, on payment at such rate as the Treasury may determine, such information as may be required to enable the board to give effect to this section.—[Mr.Soames.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this new Clause is to enable drainage charges to be raised in certain cases on owners as opposed to occupiers. Normally throughout the whole Bill the drainage charges are raised on the occupiers and are based on Schedule A. There are certain instances where the owner of a number of hereditaments has opted under Section 110 of the Income Tax Act, 1952 to be responsible for the Schedule A liabilities on the hereditaments that he owns. As a result, in the Inland Revenue books all those hereditaments are shown under the one name, instead of under the names of the occupiers as is normally the case where the tenants are paying Schedule A tax. Therefore, all that the Inland could supply to the drainage board would be the name of the owner.
The purpose of this Clause is to enable the river board, in those instances where the owner has opted to be responsible for Schedule A tax, to raise the charge from the owner and for the owner to claim it back from the occupier. This is a necessary Clause if they are to be able to collect the drainage charges from those who have so opted under Section 110 of the Act to which I have referred.

Mr. Willey: I have received the views of the Country Landowners' Association on this proposed new Clause. Whereas it expressed the view, which I am sure the Committee share, that the previous

Clauses were far from clear, I think that it accepts that this Clause is very clear. The Association states that this Clause puts into statutory language an offer made by the landowners to overcome the difficulty that river boards might otherwise experience through not having sufficient information to enable them to issue drainage charge demand notes on occupiers.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with this provision. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the position Where the owner has accepted liability for Schedule A, and if the owner be willing to act as agent it is far better to make such provision as this Clause does. Apart from the matters which we may raise on the proposed Amendments to this Clause, I do not think that the Committee wishes to raise any objection to it.

Mr. Soames: I should like to comment on one matter which has been raised by the hon. Member. I wish to place on record how grateful I am to those Associations, with whom my Department has been negotiating on this difficult issue, for agreeing to this arrangement. In particular, I am grateful for the large measure of co-operation which we have received from the Country Landowners' Association, whose members will bear the main burden of this arrangement and who have agreed that this is the right way to move.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has afforded me the opportunity to say that I have not had any representations


from the occupiers suggesting that this is an undesirable provision to make.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 8, to leave out subsection (2).
Subsection (2) is of particular interest to both owners and occupiers. It provides that
Where by virtue of this section a drainage charge is assessed on the owner and he pays the amount due before the expiration of one half of the period for which the charge is raised, the river board shall make to him an allowance equal to ten per cent. of the full amount of the charge.
A similar provision is made with regard to rates generally, although I think that the percentage for which provision is made is rather different. I believe that a greater allowance can be made in some circumstances, and I therefore ask whether the percentage referred to in this subsection is generally acceptable.
The other point I want to raise is of some substance. Such a provision as this would not be made in the case of Schedule A itself. There is a provision such as there is in connection with the collection of rates. However, the position with regard to rates is rather different from the present case. In the case of rates the rate-raising authority directs that the owner shall be responsible, whereas in this case the owner so opts. If the authority says to the owner, "You shall pay the rates" it is quite right and proper that the owner should say, "As I am acting as your agent at your direction I should be entitled to some allowance." It is rather different when the owner himself volunteers to accept this responsibility.
It was for the purpose of raising those two points that I have moved this Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: As I understand, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not so wholehearted in his support of this new Clause, for it is as a result of this Clause that this method of collection is to be introduced. In the case of a local authority housing estate, Schedule A tax is not collected individually; it is paid by the corporation and, therefore, some centralised

form of collection is essential. As a local authority would pay its drainage rates on the due date, thus saving the internal drainage board any additional costs of collection from a lot of individual ratepayers, it is only right that the local authority should get some benefit from the proper settlement of accounts.
I therefore think that this Amendment is rather mistaken, though both the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and I have the same object in view.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) no doubt realises that there is good precedent for this provision, as can be found in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, but he thinks that perhaps there is a difference as between the case in which the owner, under the Rating and Valuation Act, acts as the agent of the rating authority and the case in which he actually opts to do so in connection with drainage charges.
But what he has opted to do is not to collect drainage charges: it is to pay the Schedule A liability on behalf of his tenants, rather than to have it collected from the individual occupiers. The owner having opted to do something quite unconnected with drainage charges, and, indeed, before drainage charges came into force, it would not be right not to allow him something for the collection that he undertakes.
The hon. Member referred to the allowance of 10 per cent. which appears in this subsection and asked how it compares with the provisions of the Rating and Valuation Act. The Act provides for an allowance of between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. The reason is that there are wide differences in the amounts involved and the lengths of time. This is a comparatively simple operation and we considered that it was not worth giving the differential of between 5 per cent. and 15 per cent. We therefore thought that an allowance of 10 per cent. would be the most suitable amount. This is perfectly fair and I am sure that it will not create a precedent, as would have been created had we not included subsection (2).
I hope, therefore, that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North will think it right that subsection (2) should remain.

Mr. Willey: The Minister's explanation has justified our putting down the Amendment. I am satisfied by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It was right and proper to inquire about the percentage because of the difference, and it was also right and proper to raise the point about the difference in character between this case and the owner who pays rates. I agree that it would be a hardship if an allowance was not made to the owner where this burden falls upon him in consequence of something else.
I am tempted to say that it would have been far better if the Government had faced the question of Schedule A. The present case is a consequence of their not doing so. We discussed the matter in Standing Committee and here we have another illustration of the consequence of the failure of the Government to deal with what is the cardinal problem in many of these cases. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Richard Nugent: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 19, at the end to insert:
(4) The occupier of a chargeable hereditament may by notice in writing served on the river board—

(a) elect that subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the hereditament; and
(b) cancel any election previously made under this subsection;

and any such election or cancellation shall have effect in relation to any drainage charge raised for any period beginning after the date on which the notice is served.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): With this Amendment, we can discuss also the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), in line 22 of the proposed Clause, at the end to add:
(5) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the rights of occupiers conferred by section nine of this Act, and in cases arising under this section the notice of appeal by the occupier must be given within twenty-eight days after such occupier received written notice of the amount of drainage charge which the owner seeks to recover.

Sir R. Nugent: This is a small Amendment which would improve the Clause. I am glad to see that I have the support of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), whose name appears to it and who speaks so eloquently on behalf of the Country Landowners' Association. I speak on behalf of the river boards. I preface my remarks by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for his new Clause, which will meet the great machinery problems that river boards will have of collecting the drainage charge. We have had many long and arduous consultations to devise the best kind of machinery to enable river boards to collect the charges without undue expense, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he has met us.
The effect of the Amendment will not alter the substance of the Clause. It will simply enable an occupier who falls within the category of the Clause to opt out of the effect of it, its effect being that the landlord will pay the whole of the drainage charge in these circumstances and will recover from his tenants. My Amendment will enable a single occupier in such an estate to opt out of the scheme if he wishes, so that the river board will then have the obligation to levy a separate drainage charge direct upon that occupier whilst continuing with the omnibus arrangement on the owner for the remainder of the tenants on the estate. This provision will meet the common wish to give the occupier reasonable choice and it will meet the point of the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), because it will preserve the occupier's right of appeal.
Having met these important constitutional points, once again the river boards felt anxiety about the sort of problem that they would have in assessing the individual occupier who wished to opt out of the scheme. At an earlier stage, however, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave me the assurance that the Inland Revenue is prepared to provide the necessary information to enable river boards to make such an assessment so that river boards will not have the considerable expense which would be involved in sending surveyors to a hereditament and surveying it.


4.45 p.m.
I am satisfied, therefore, that river boards can happily co-operate. I shall be grateful, however, if my right hon. Friend will give that assurance the weight of his expression at the Box to make sure that the Inland Revenue does not become forgetful—not that it ever does in my own affairs, but it might do in this case. Therefore, it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would repeat that assurance.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend will notice that the new Clause refers to the fact that the owner may opt out. The Amendment gives the occupier the right to seek to opt out. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that this will not lead to disputes between owners and occupiers?

Sir R. Nugent: I hope that that is exactly what it will avoid. In an estate where the majority of the occupiers wish to be in such an omnibus scheme as the new Clause provides for, there may be one farmer who wishes to opt out. My Amendment gives that farmer the choice of doing so without causing more complications. That is something that everybody would wish.

Mr. John Wells: Naturally, my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) and other hon. Members and myself who put down the Amendment in line 22 will be content with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), which seems to satisfy everything we want. We would, however, like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that Clause 9 will continue to protect the interests of occupiers.

Mr. Willey: I join this harmonious association. I am willing to support all constructive proposals, whether they come from the landowners or from other bodies. In this case, the Minister should accept the suggestion which has been made to him. Something might be done which is felt to be to the prejudice of an occupier, and in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman should be able to take the steps proposed. I am happy to be assured that there will not be any difficulties from the point of view of survey information. I do not wish un-necessarily

to recall the fact, but it would have been better if such information as will be required could be provided without cost to anybody.

Sir D. Glover: If my hon. Friend's Amendment is accepted and, in consequence, subsection (1) of the Clause does not apply and subsection (2) operates, will a tenant who pays his drainage rate promptly get a 10 per cent. reduction? That seems to me to be the effect of the Amendment.

Mr. Soames: The Amendment seems to have found favour so widespread throughout the Committee that I should be embarrassed if I could not accept it. Happily, I am able to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) for moving it. It undoubtedly improves the Clause and my hon. Friend has explained concisely its purpose. I can put the minds of other hon. Members at rest.
The Amendment removes only one tiny particle, so to speak. It does not affect the owner's right to opt under Section 110 that all his Schedule A on all his hereditments should be dealt with by himself. All that it does is to enable an occupier who feels that, under this system, he cannot appeal—as he could have done had the charge been raised directly upon him, by virtue of the fact that it is taken from him and not the owner—and that merely to be able to grumble to the owner is of no use, to ask that where a drainage charge is involved, he may be dealt with separately, thus giving him direct access to the river board. Where the owner is concerned under Section 110, all his Schedule A is still done through him, but if an occupier prefers to deal with the drainage charge on his own he can arrange to do so and the owner would not then collect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) spoke about the 10 per cent. That is a payment to the owner for collecting the charge. In this case, however, he does not do the collecting. The occupier pays direct in exactly the same way as every other occupier. Therefore, no question of the 10 per cent. payment arises.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for putting down the Amendment and my hon. Friend the


Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) for his part in the Amendment in line 22. Both Amendments are designed to do the same thing, but the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford is the more suitable of the two. Accordingly, I suggest that we accept it.

Sir R. Nugent: Can my right hon. Friend give the assurance, for which I asked, that the Inland Revenue will provide the information?

Mr. Soames: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not doing so. I gladly reiterate the assurance given to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. George Jeger: I do not want to dissent from the note of agreement which has been reached on the Amendment—I heartily concur in the Minister's acceptance of it—but a remark made by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) sent my mind back to the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Guildford said that he spoke on behalf of the River Boards' Association and his Amendment has been accepted by the Minister. On Second Reading, on 14th November, however, we were assured by the Minister that he had had negotiations with the leaders of interested parties, including the Rivers Boards' Association, and that
The parts of the Bill which deal with the financial contribution to be made by occupiers of agricultural land…represent the agreement reached between all these bodies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1960, Vol. 630, c.35–6.]
If there have been second thoughts by the River Boards' Association, presented to the Committee through the hon. Member for Guildford, and we have this later agreement by the Minister, are we confronted with the fact that agreements that were reached so long ago between the Minister and the various interested bodies are, perhaps, capable of second thoughts all round and that there will be disagreement upon the various Amendments which are being proposed, to some extent setting at nought the agreements that were reached earlier?
This gives rise to the thought that, possibly, the later stages of the Bill, through which we are passing today, have been delayed rather too long and have, therefore, given rise to second or

even third thoughts in the mind of the Minister in bringing forward his Amendments and new Clauses and also of the River Boards' Association in putting forward their Amendments thereto?
In these circumstances, the Minister ought to explain the position with the various associations with which he was in consultation in the earlier stages and let us know whether his agreement with them has now been broken or whether his relationships with them are as amicable as they were before.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that will be out of order unless the right hon. Member refers merely to the matter as affected by the Amendment to the new Clause.

Mr. Soames: I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind completely at rest, I think, because that which he referred to on Second Reading could not have referred to this new Clause, which was not in the Bill on Second Reading. This is a new Clause moved after consideration of the Bill in the Standing Committee. Then there was this Amendment down to it; hence the need for recommittal here.
I can assure the hon. Member that, strange as it may seem after this long period of time, going back many years now, the relationship which has existed between my Department and the various associations interested in drawing up the Bill is more cordial now than before the Bill started. This refers to this Amendment, but perhaps I shall not be straying too far out of order, Mr. Blackburn, if I say that it refers to others as well.

Mr. Jeger: I would say a word or two on the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has brought this new Clause. Why was there no consultation with the River Boards' Association so as to render unnecessary the Amendment by a representative of the Association? Had there been consultation beforehand, and in the way outlined in the Second Reading debate, it would have been unnecessary for an Amendment to have been brought forward in the way that this has been.

Mr. Willey: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), because this is a matter which has caused some difficulty in our consideration of these new Clauses—although I am dealing only, of course, with the new Clause now before us—

The Temporary Chairman: But the hon. Member ought to be dealing with the Amendment to the new Clause.

Mr. Willey: —with the Amendment to it which the hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) was promoting for the River Boards' Association.
We have been in difficulty repeatedly on this question of full consultation. It is quite clear that if there had been consultation there would have been no difficulty about the Amendment. The Government would have accepted it. It is equally clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Goole, with his usual perspicacity, has discovered, that there were no consultations, because if there had been the point of the Amendment would have been in the Clause originally. I have rarely seen the Minister so enthusiastic in accepting an Amendment. So, obviously, there would have been no difficulty.
This Clause originated, it is quite clear, from the River Boards' Association. No one quarrels with it, but I think that my hon. Friend has made a proper point. It is disappointing that there has been considerable delay since we were last discussing the Bill, when the point was repeatedly made that there had been no proper consultation. One would have thought that there would have been a Government Amendment indicating that what was complained of when we last discussed the Bill would have been rectified.
I think that my hon. Friend has made a fair point in calling attention again to the fact that we have been in difficulties in discussing this legislation, because it depended upon agreement. Now we have got a new Clause introducing new methods, and again we find that all the exhortations which we were making to the Government fell on deaf ears, because not only was there originally no consultation, but about this Amendment there has been no consultation, because, as I say, if there had been consultation about the Amendment which the hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford has proposed the Government would have accepted it and would have indicated their acceptance of it by putting down an Amendment themselves.

5.0 p.m.

Sir R. Nugent: There have, of course, been many consultations over this matter of the assessment and collection of the drainage charge. It is a most complex matter, made more difficult because it is a three-cornered one between the river boards, the Ministry and the Inland Revenue, hedged about with various confidential aspects of Inland Revenue work, which made the problem a very difficult one indeed. There have, of course, inevitably been times when consultations have got out of step.
The Minister's new Clause was tabled. Since then, there have been further consultations. I do not doubt there will be still more, because there are still various machinery complexities in the Bill which really are very difficult to settle. However, I would be glad to assure the Committee that there has been very close and very long consultation to iron out the various technicalities, and the boards have not suffered from any unwillingness on the part of my right hon. Friend to consult long and arduously.

Mr. Willey: The Committee should get this quite clear. The river boards, in particular, should not be put in a prejudicial position. One knows from experience well enough that if the bodies consulted cannot convince the Government of their case they find Members, such as the hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), to raise the matter by way of an Amendment—which he is now doing. One does not expect that course to be taken if the consultations have been satisfactorily settled.
No one is quarrelling with the new Clause, but here we have got a new Clause which was instigated by one of the parties to the agreement on which the Bill was based. The hon. Member subsequently raised the Amendment which we are discussing now and said—he put it in general terms—there was consultation. It still seems to me, unless he can assure the Committee to the contrary, that there has not been adequate or satisfactory consultation on the point he has raised by way of this Amendment, and that seems to indicate that we are on this Clause in the position in which we were on previous Clauses, that the consultation has been with a particular


body which has been interested in promoting the purpose behind the new Clause.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) was seeking was an assurance that, because the Bill does depend upon a delicate agreement reached after very real difficulties, the spirit of the agreement should carry through the new Clause we are now discussing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

First Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 31, line 31, to leave out "After" and to insert "In".
I think that it would be convenient, Mr. Blackburn, to take with this Amendment the next one, in page 31, line 33.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Soames: This Amendment arises from discussions in Standing Committee, when the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) moved a number of Amendments which would have increased the powers of local authorities. I said at the time that we could not meet him exactly on the suggestion he made. I am sorry that he is not able to be here today to see the manner in which we have been able to meet him, as we said we hoped to be able to.
I could not agree with the hon. Member's suggestion that the powers provided in Clause 25 to deal with obstructions in watercourses should be taken away from the county councils and conferred on district councils, but we take the view that district councils should be able to exercise these powers without the powers having to be delegated to them by the county councils. This, I think, meets the point on which the hon. Member was keen.
The Amendments will, therefore, provide that district councils will be able to take action within their areas to require clearance of obstructed watercourses without having to wait for this power to be delegated to them by the county councils. This does not, of

course, impinge upon the work of river boards or on main rivers in any way. Before taking action the local authorities will, of course, have to notify the river or drainage board concerned.

Mr. Willey: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for the steps that he has taken, and would also say that this is, I believe, satisfactory to the body which was not a party to the agreement, but which was interested, the Association of Municipal Corporations. I think that it appreciates the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. My hon. Friend is unavoidably unable to be with us at the moment, but he hopes to be able to join us in our discussions later.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Do I take it that rural district councils now automatically replace the county authorities altogether in this business, and that the county authorities have no power whatever in regard to it and that everything passes over to the district councils within their respective areas?

Mr. Soames: No. That is not so. As I said when I moved the Amendment, power still remains with the county authority, but the district authority can also clear a watercourse without having to wait to be told to do so by the county authority. There may be occasions when speed is everything, and it would be a pity to have to get in touch with the county and for arrangements to have to be made from that level all the way down to the district level before action could be taken. It is permissive, so to speak, for both the county authority and the district authority to act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 31, line 33, after "Act" insert:
after the words 'county borough', in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words 'or county district', and after that subsection".—[Mr. Soames.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

New Clause.—(POWERS OF ENTRY.)

5
(1) Without prejudice to any other enactment conferring powers of entry, a person authorised by a drainage board may, after giving notice in writing to the occupier and producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter any land for the purpose of exercising any function of the board under the Act of 1930.


(2) A person entitled under this section to enter any land may take with him such other persons and such equipment as may be necessary and, if the land is unoccupied, he shall, on leaving it, leave it as effectually secured against trespassers as he found it.


10
(3) Admission to any land used for residential purposes and, except in an emergency, admission with heavy equipment to any other land, shall not be demanded as of right under this section unless the notice required by subsection (1) of this section has been given not less than twenty-four hours before the intended entry.


15
(4) Subsection (3) of section thirty-four of the Act of 1930 (which provides for compensation in the case of injury) shall extend to any injury sustained by any person by reason of the exercise of the power of entry conferred by this section.


(5) If any person obstructs or impedes any person exercising a right conferred by this section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.—[Mr. Vane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Let me say at once that the origin of this Clause is in representations by the Association of Drainage Authorities during the earlier discussions on the Bill, to the effect that this was an occasion when their powers of entry might be revised. Therefore, it does not arise out of any of the general discussions or consultations such as those which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had in mind.
This new Clause gives drainage boards, when carrying out their functions, powers of entry analogous to those possessed by river boards. The earlier powers of the drainage boards could be said to be hardly effective in view of their responsibilities, and it has been said that they were tied too closely to the purpose of survey. We have made an Amendment in the Standing Committee which deals with that.
We originally thought it might have been possible to have amended Clause 43, but in the end it was felt, bearing in mind that the responsibility of drainage boards is probably better recognised today than it was, perhaps, when earlier legislation was considered, that the right thing to do was to give drainage boards which do work broadly similar to that done by river boards powers which are analogous to the powers which river boards enjoy. Hence this new Clause.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend referred to Clause 43; I think that he means Section 43 of the 1920 Act.

Mr. Vane: I apologise. My hon. Friend is quite correct. It was Section 43 of the earlier Act.
The powers are not quite as wide as those given to the river boards, whose responsibilities are wider, but I commend the Clause to the House because I think it gives drainage boards what they want and all that is reasonable to enable them to carry out their functions.

Mr. Willey: I think that we have had a completely inadequate explanation of the course which the Government are taking. The Parliamentary Secretary might well anticipate that to seek powers of entry causes apprehension any way. No one likes to give powers of entry lightly. The hon. Gentleman has done no more than say that at some time—we know not when—representations were made by the Association of Drainage Authorities, and, consequent upon that, we have this new Clause before us. That seems to me a completely inadequate explanation of the step which the Government are taking.
The first point I would make is that this is not a new matter at all. It is a matter to which reference was made in the Heneage Report. If we look at paragraph 119 of that Report we see that the Committee stated:
We consider that the general powers of internal drainage boards to execute works, contained in Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, will, so far as they are applicable,


be adequate for the exercise of their functions. Under the existing legislation they have the same powers of entry to perform thir functions as catchment boards. Since, however, catchment boards will eventually be superseded by river boards, who have more adequate powers of entry under Section 16 of the River Boards Act, 1948, we recommend that internal drainage boards should be given powers of entry similar to those of river boards.
Therefore, this was a matter before the Government and before all the parties to these discussions. These discussions went on for an incredible length of time. The Government produce legislation and we discuss it in Standing Committee, but there is no reference at all by anyone to the need for powers of entry.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that. I would point out that when we were discussing the Schedule to the Bill in Standing Committee I raised this matter. It was because of an undertaking given to me by my right hon. Friend that I withdrew the Amendment which I was proposing to the Schedule.

Mr. Willey: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was dealing with the parties to the agreement, and I am sorry if I created the impression that I was going beyond that. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to the contribution which he made.
I am concerned with the background to the Bill and with the Government coming to the House, having sought and obtained agreement, and saying, "The steps we take are circumscribed. We are not doing all we might well wish to do because the Bill is based upon an agreement".
In spite of these exhaustive discussions there is nothing about seeking powers of entry. Nevertheless, it is a matter to which attention was drawn by the Heneage Committee, so that it is a matter which would have been on the agenda of the parties who discussed the proposed legislation. It is remarkable that it should be left to the initiative of the Parliamentary Secretary to raise this point. It means that we are in this peculiar difficulty in the House. I hope that the House will never lightly give powers of entry.
This is something which I hope, by common agreement, is limited to cases of absolute, patent necessity. We have before us, of course, evidence that there is some case for seeking these powers—I refer to the reference in the Heneage Report—but we have no evidence at all that this matter was discussed and regarded as one which ought to be put into the Bill until, apparently, at a later stage.
I feel that this is a very unsatisfactory way of conceding these powers. I do not wish in any way to reflect upon the drainage boards, but I think that before we agree to these powers being extended in this way we should receive a much more satisfactory explanation from the Government about the matter. As I say, if one looks up the index under "Powers of Entry", and notes the cases in which these powers have been given, one sees that, very properly, the examples are very narrowly limited.
After a state of emergency, one of the first attentions of anyone interested in the liberty of the subject is directed to see that as rapidly as possible the powers of entry provided for the emergency are withdrawn. Here we have the Government extending those powers, and I feel that before we can accept the proposal which the Government are making, particularly in the circumstances in which they are making it—by way of a new Clause on Report—we should point out that the matter ought to have been thoroughly discussed in Standing Committee. We ought not to have been robbed of that opportunity. But, quite apart from that, we ought not to allow the Government to provide these new powers or to extend the scope of powers of entry without a much more satisfactory explanation than we have had so far from the Government.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bullard: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for acknowledging the fact that I raised this point in Standing Committee. I was prompted to do so by the Association of Drainage Authorities, and it was very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for proposing to insert this Clause in the Bill. Powers of entry were, of course, granted under the Bill as it stood when we discussed it in Standing Committee, except that those


powers were for light tackle or survey equipment, and so on, and did not give permission to enter with heavy machinery, which is the tendency these days.
Having said that the Association is very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the new Clause, I should like to say a word or two about it from my own point of view. I support it in very large measure. As the hon. Gentleman has said, one has to be extraordinarily careful about these powers of entry. I think that there will still be, and especially under the powers which drainage boards will be given under the proposed new Clause, very special need for them to exercise great care in the way they use those powers.
Nothing is said about the length of notice required, but it behoves every drainage board which is carrying out a major scheme to see that owners and occupiers along the whole course of the drain know in good time, not merely days or hours before but weeks before, of the intention to come in with machinery to do the job so that they can make some preparation and are not faced with entry at the last moment.
Most internal drainage boards—indeed, I would say all—are very diligent in this respect, and it will be especially necessary for them so to be when they are given the powers proposed under this Clause. I wish that the notice required to be given to owners of residential property could really be adequate, but the trouble is that it is impossible to do away altogether with the inconvenience caused to them by drainage operations. The people carrying out the work have got to come in and will make a mess, and all the notice in the world will not alleviate the position very much. The community has to take the decision whether it wants drainage work to be done or whether it does not. On balance, its need for it is very great, and, therefore, it has to suffer the inconvenience of it.
Although I am glad to see that a short period is to be allowed before entering on to residential property, it is proper to note that we can never do away with the inconvenience caused. The only remedy is to pay compensation as the new Clause proposes.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) that we should examine proposals of this kind very carefully. They are an encroachment on personal liberty.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that these powers were analogous to the powers of river boards. I presume that he was referring to the powers of river boards under Section 16 of the River Boards Act, 1948. It seems to me that this new Clause grants additional powers to drainage boards, because there is reference in it to entering on land with equipment, whereas in the 1948 Act there is, I think, no reference to equipment.
I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would say that in this context a drainage board included a river board and that, therefore, the additional powers granted to drainage boards would apply to river boards. I hope that he realises that this proposal gives new power to a drainage board to take equipment on land which river boards do not have at present.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Ordinarily, I should be very much in favour of following the advice of the Association of Drainage Authorities on a matter of this kind, because no one knows more about how to administer land drainage in internal districts than this body. On the other hand, we are under an obligation to look after the individual rights of citizens. I think that when we compare the powers which are already possessed by internal drainage boards with what is written in the River Boards Act, 1948, concerning river boards, we will see that the new Clause falls between the two.
Section 16 (5) of the 1948 Act refers to a justice of the peace being brought into the matter in certain instances. There is no mention of that in the new Clause in the event of entry having to be forced. I do not dispute that there may be occasions when entry has to be forced. In the interests of good land drainage and sometimes in the interests of the public's safety, it may be necessary to force entry. In times of emergency in the Fens very unpleasant situations can arise when the local population rises and arms itself with pitchforks to prevent certain things happening. It may be


necessary that the strong arm of the law should be brought in, but it seems to me more important that the law should not be exercised arbitrarily by those who will have to do certain jobs. It ought to be done with the full authority of the law. If it were thought necessary to insert such a provision concerning forced entry in the River Boards Act, why is there no reference to in the new Clause?
In general, I am certain that the Association of Drainage Authorities has made out a reasonable case for following up the recommendations of the Heneage Committee which appear at pages 50 and 51 of its Report. I think that there is a case for strengthening the powers and putting them exactly on the lines advocated in the Report. If the new Clause did that, I would have no reservations about it. However, it does not do it, and I think that it should do it.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the meaning of subsection (4) of the new Clause. It refers to compensation to be paid for
…any injury sustained by any person by reason of the exercise of the power of entry conferred by this section".
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give illustrations of circumstances in which people may be injured and what type of compensation will be payable. I do not understand the new Clause and I should like the hon. Gentleman to clarify it.

Sir D. Glover: I think that most of us accept, with reservations, that the power of entry is necessary so that the drainage authorities may carry out their duties. However, I hope that the Government, in considering this problem in another place, will consider seriously tabling a timetable controlling the right of entry to private property. We had the same problem some years ago concerning the electricity authorities which, when the Bill came before the House, had the power of entry in 24 hours. Because of the opposition encountered in the House the period was changed to three weeks.
I do not suggest that the delay should be as long as three weeks in this case, but the private occupier of property has

the right to say that, except in an emergency, he should have reasonable notice of entry. By that I mean, not 24 hours, but a week or 14 days. If they are planning their affairs properly, these authorities do not need to give notice overnight, except in an emergency, and invade somebody's private property with heavy machinery. They can give plenty of notice.
I feel that the objections to this new Clause would be removed if it were laid down that seven or 14 days' notice should be given before the right of entry could be exercised.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: This new Clause comes strange from the party opposite, which claims to be the custodian of the freedom of the individual. I wish to emphasise what has been said by two or three hon. Members, namely, that adequate notice of entry must be given—not merely 24 hours, but several days, if possible weeks. In fact, as much notice as possible should be given before resort is made to these powers.
Although I agree that in the last resort these powers should be used, it should happen only in exceptional circumstances, where essential drainage work is being held up by the land in question, and then only after every other means of doing the work has been exhausted.

Mr. Vane: I did not go into the new Clause in greater detail when I spoke before, because we referred to these powers in Committee. They are not entirely novel. They are an extension of powers for drainage boards. River boards have had much wider powers for a long time. We are as jealous as any hon. Member of not giving sundry rights of entry when there is no need for it. We are dealing here not only with drainage problems, over which we can take our time without damage being done, but also with flood water, which can rise rapidly.
The damage which was done not long ago, and which, perhaps, could have been avoided if only longer notice had been given and it had been possible to take remedial measures, is still fresh in most of our minds. Like myself, hon. Members who live within the boundaries of the City of Westminster may remember that a few weeks ago we were


awakened in the night by loudspeakers, presumably on police cars, announcing a flood warning and asking people to take precautions. I understand that the water then reached within a few inches of the parapet of the Thames, and the only notice that we had was a matter of minutes, rather than hours. We must bear in mind here that we are thinking of a balance. One would like to give the longest possible notice, but, on the other hand, we must also not forget that we are concerned, by and large, with an emergency.
5.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that he would have preferred the powers of entry to have been stronger. The fact that they are not stronger is evidence that we are very jealous, as one hon. Gentleman said we should be, about giving powers of entry to any authority. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) spoke of compensation for injury. It can happen on occasions like this that some injury to property results, and, needless to say, the House always wants to ensure, however great the emergency, that no householder suffers damage. It may be that there is a stream running along the bottom of a garden, and that a wall is knocked down in the course of the work. In case of dispute, the amount of damage will be settled by the Lands Tribunal.

Dr. Stross: The words are, "injury sustained by any person". This is the point which I should like to have clarified. Does the Parliamentary Secretary envisage that it is possible for people to be injured as a result of this power of entry?

Mr. Vane: I am advised that, in the main, we are concerned with damage to property which can result from heavy machinery—for example, cleaning out a drain, which might be an urgent job, to relieve flooding elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) asked whether we would consider a timetable of longer notice. It was thought that, without making the Clause unduly long, it would be difficult to have different timetables for different cases, but the drainage authorities and the river boards have in the past given ample evidence that they

are responsible in exercising their powers. It would be possible to elaborate them, but we thought that, in the light of our experience and of the circumstances we might have to face, probably this wording was right.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) asked why we should give the power to drainage boards and not to river boards to enter land with heavy equipment. The Standing Committee accepted an Amendment to the Schedule which gives the power of entry with heavy equipment to the river boards.
I hope that these answers to the various questions raised by hon. Members will show them that we are not careless at all, but that we have considered very carefully this question of the power of entry, and that we are putting into this Clause what we think are the right powers, but no more than the right powers, to enable drainage boards in emergencies to carry out their duties.
The House might also bear in mind that there is no limit to the length of notice which an authority shall give. What we have got here is a minimum notice, and any ordinary business undertaking, in the course of its planning, does not work on a minimum basis, but has reasonable regard for those with whom it comes in contact. I have no doubt that the drainage boards will have the same regard to this as the river boards have had in the past.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think that my hon. Friend has totally misunderstood the point I was putting. He thought that I wanted the powers to be more severe, but the point I was objecting to was the omission from the obligation of the duty to go to a justice of the peace, under Section 16 (5) of the River Boards Act. Powers of entry are similar, and although I am not suggesting that we should include the power to authorise people appointed by the Minister under Section 16 (3), the powers of entry are so great in this new Clause that they ought to oblige us to put in something similar to the provisions of the Section 16 (5), obliging the authority to go to a justice of the peace to get the authority for the entry. That is the point. I am not saying that these powers are not enough; I am saying that the safeguards for the individual citizen are not enough.

Mr. Vane: My hon. Friend is right and I am right, too. He has drawn a distinction between two sets of powers, but, in general, I can assure him that the powers of the drainage boards are less strong than those of the river boards. It is assumed that river boards, as the larger authority dealing with greater works, may find itself, on occasions, faced with a serious situation, where there is some urgency. Therefore, this power is inserted to enable it, where its way is barred, to be able to take action quickly, whereas the drainage boards will have to go a bit longer way round.

Mr. Willey: I think that every hon. Member will feel that we are in a very unsatisfactory position, however we approach this new Clause. If we approach it sympathetically, we find that the Clause is not in very satisfactory form, and this confirms my own impression that there has not been adequate thought or consultation. If, on the other hand, we are unsympathetic, and we always ought to be unsympathetic towards such an extension of power, the position is even more unsatisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary, in spite of an invitation which I gave him to refer to the Heneage Committee's Report, has not provided any justification for such an extension of these powers.
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in the Standing Committee and it consists of a few lines, and that is all. I will refresh the memory of the Parliamentary Secretary on his reply, upon which, apparently, he bases this new Clause. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) raised the question, which has been mentioned today, of heavy equipment.

Mr. Vane: Column number?

Mr. Willey: It is column 484, and I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not recollect it. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had proposed an Amendment to the Schedule, and the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was so short that I quote in extenso. He said:
My right hon. Friend appreciates my hon. Friend's point, namely, that there is something missing, and, though he cannot accept the Amendment in so many words, he will at least consider the matter and see whether he can include something on the next stage of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd February, 1961; c.484.]

I do not think that anyone was given notice on such an assurance that we should be considering a new Clause.

Mr. Vane: If the hon. Gentleman will remember, we were very near the end of the Bill—at ten minutes to one o'clock. Hon. Members of the Committee on both sides were encouraging me to reply to these various points as quickly as possible. I am not saying that that is any excuse for not giving a full reply. On the other hand, during those last few minutes of a long Committee stage, there was a temptation, perhaps, not to elaborate them.

Mr. Willey: I do not complain for a moment about the hon. Gentleman's brevity, and I do not want to persuade him to desert such a useful practice. I do not deny that we were dealing with a few miscellaneous points, which always arise at the end of Committee proceedings, but I would not suggest, as he does, that the Committee would not have wished to sit another day if the Committee had felt that such an important matter as this was to be discussed. I am quite certain that if we had felt that this question of extending these powers of entry was to be raised the Committee would have been willing to consider it. We were not in that position, it is quite clear.
We now have before us a Clause which, I think, is unsatisfactory in itself and is also unsatisfactory in the way in which it has come before us. In these circumstances, I do not wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily, because we shall have the opportunity to discuss Amendments to the new Clause, on one of which I hope to attract the support of the hon. Member. The reason for that is that we are concerned about the notice that should be given. If the Government are adamant, the only course that we can take is to register our dissatisfaction with the new Clause by dividing against it.

Sir D. Glover: As the debate goes on I get more worried and confused about the Clause than when we started. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be another look at it in another place?
First, there is the question of time, but even more confusing is that in his last intervention my hon. Friend said that the river boards would have far greater powers of entry than the internal drainage boards because they deal with


much more urgent problems. The fact is that the internal drainage boards often have to deal with flood matters which are just as urgent as any dealt with by the river boards. If the power is justified in one case, it is justified in the other case; if it is not justified in one case, it is not justified in the other.
It seems to me that the Government have not really thought out all the

Division No. 145.]
AYES
[5.42 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Nugent, Sir Richard


Aitken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle


Allason, James
Green, Alan
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Batsford, Brian
Grimston, Sir Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bell, Ronald
Grosvenor, Lt.-col. R. G.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Gurden, Harold
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Partridge, E.


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitman, I. J.


Box, Donald
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pitt, Miss Edith


Boyle, Sir Edward
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pott, Percivall


Brewis, John
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Hendry, Forbes
Prior, J. M. L.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bryan, Paul
Hinchingbrooke, viscount
Pym, Francis


Buck, Antony
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullard, Denys
Hobson, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Burden, F. A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees, Hugh


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robertson, Sir David


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sharples, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Iremonger, T. L.
Shaw, M.


Chataway, Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jackson, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Jennings, J. C.
Smithers, Peter


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordle, John
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Coulson, J. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Teeling, William


Cunningham, Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Duncan, Sir James
MacArthur, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Duthie, Sir William
McLaren, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Turner, Colin


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Farr, John
Marshall, Douglas
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Finlay, Graeme
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Wakefiled, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walder, David


Freeth, Denzil
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mills, Stratton
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Watts, James


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morgan, William
Whitelaw, William


Goodhart, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gower, Raymond
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

implications of what we are trying to do with this power of entry. Consequently, I ask my hon. Friend to give me an assurance that another look will be taken at this in another place. Otherwise, I shall have very great difficulty in supporting the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 145.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
woodnutt, Mark



Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woollam, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wise, A. R.
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Yates, William (The Wrekin)





NOES


Ainsley, William
Holt, Arthur
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Houghton, Douglas
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, Sir George
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jeger, George
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Bowles, Frank
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, James
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, David
Steele, Thomas


Crossman, R. H. S.
Loughlin, Charles
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
McCann, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
MacColl, James
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Manuel, A. C.
Thornton, Ernest

Donnelly, Desmond
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Driberg, Tom
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Marsh, Richard
Warbey, William


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward J.
Whitlock, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Neal, Harold
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Grey, Charles
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, J.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Peart, Frederick
Zilliacus, K.


Healey, Denis
Pentland, Norman



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Plummer, Sir Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.
Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Hilton, A. V.

Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 2, after "the", to insert "owner and".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss with it the Amendment in line 3, after "required", to insert "by the occupier".

Mr. Willey: Certainly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, they go together. The point they raise is quite simple. The Government having insisted upon providing these extensive powers of entry, we are seeking to improve the provisions. The proposals we are making in these two Amendments are that the drainage board should give

notice not only to the occupier but also to the owner, but we recognise that the requirements of producing authority should be a duty which would fall upon the person in relation to the occupier and that it would be unrealistic to insist upon such an obligation falling upon the owner as well.
I am sorry that the hon. Baronet the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) is not here, because this proposal comes from the Country Landowners' Association. We had already put down several Amendments and then I noticed that the Association also raised this question and we felt that this was a reasonable request. I appreciate the difficulties but, on the


face of it, this is a reasonable thing to ask. The Association says:
Whilst it is admitted that notice to the occupier is essential, for the entry will in all probability affect his occupation, and possibly interfere with his farming operations, there seems no reason why the owner of the land should not also be given notice. Objections to a statutory obligation on public local authorities to give notice to an owner have in the past been mainly directed to the practical difficulty of finding out his name and address without some long and expensive enquiries. In this case, however, the names of owners are usually known already. If they are not, there is usually adequate time to ascertain them because works are generally planned well in advance. In those circumstances there seems no reason why a drainage board should not in the initial stage ascertain the name and address of the owners on whose land they propose to enter.
This seems quite reasonable and it touches a point which we have already discussed on the Clause itself. Despite the picturesque recollection of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in our earlier debate, we are not here dealing in the main with emergency conditions.
I do not like giving authorities wide powers like this and at the same time not providing the safeguards to ensure that they should act reasonably. I concede that drainage boards may be reluctant to have the further duty imposed upon them of notifying the owner as well as the occupier, but unless the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can produce a convincing case that this would make the work of the boards impossible, I hope that he will accept this proposal.
In spite of the criticism that has been made, the House has said now that it will extend the powers of entry, and I should have thought that all of us in the House would agree that this should be done most reluctantly and with every possible safeguard. The provision in these two Amendments is on the face of it a possible safeguard. I have considered the arguments put forward in its favour by the owners themselves and I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that there is no convincing reason why the Amendments should not be accepted.
The requirement of the production of an authority is, of course, one that can only sensibly fall upon the person entering in respect of the occupier. As to the notice, there is no overwhelming reason

against the obligation being placed upon the authority to notify the owner. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to accept these Amendments as important safeguards.

Mr. Vane: I concede entirely that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is anxious to see that in the ordinary course of routine work public authorities pay proper regard to private interests. I agree with him also that we do not want their work held up by imposing the duplication of any duties. On the other hand, we do not want to give authorities powers out of all proportion to the job that they have to do. The hon. Member has said that the production of authority to the occupier could be reasonably accepted as sufficient. I am glad that he said that, because it might be difficult to find an owner, and in certain circumstances a duplication of work is involved which adds nothing to the efficiency of the operation.
This, again, is a matter of balance of advantage. Are we to ask the authority to send further notices or are we to accept that the notice by the drainage board served on the occupier will be sufficient? We drafted the Clause thinking that the latter provision was probably sufficient. It has been brought home to us and argued in the Standing Committee that we must remember that drainage boards are frequently small authorities with small office staffs and that anything that we can do to save them any unnecessary work ought not to be put lightly on one side.
We therefore felt that in the circumstances not only the production of the authority but also the notice on the occupier would be sufficient, and the occupier normally could be expected to report to the owner that he had received such a notice. Throughout the Bill we have to make the choice whether to elaborate the administrative machinery or to keep it as simple as we can. We do not want to be lax in arrangements made for the exercise of such important powers of entry, but I hope that the House will agree that elaboration here would hardly be justified; and we are acting in accordance with precedent in earlier Acts.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the


proposed Clause, in line 4, after "land", to insert:
except any land used for residential purposes".
The purpose of the Amendment is to safeguard the individual after these powers have been given to the drainage board. As already explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), most of our Amendments are designed to do precisely that. We do not consider that a drainage board should have power to enter a private home. We must have proper regard for private interests and safeguard residential property such as homes and gardens. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be sympathetic to the Amendment. He resisted our previous Amendment, but I hope that he will support this one in view of his statement about the need to safeguard, or at least to pay proper regard to, private interests.
6.0 p.m.
I am certain that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) will sympathise with the object of this Amendment, and will, I hope, support it. We move it in a constructive spirit. It seeks to safeguard the property rights of the individual—a matter to Which I hope the Conservative Party will be sympathetic.

Mr. Vane: I accept at once that hon. Members opposite are being constructive in this matter, and I hope that they will not think me obstructive, for that is not my intention. I reiterate that When we are considering these powers we must not be ruthless but must consider people's homes and gardens. We are not merely concerned here with agricultural land which may be a long way from any buildings, but also residential property. Unfortunately, water does not always recognise the niceties which we recognise in this Clause. We must deal with water where we find it.
It may happen that in a certain area where there is some building development and residential land such as gardens, all mixed up with agricultural land, the problem must be treated as one. We make a distinction in the Clause, but it is not possible for us to rule out entry on to residential land.

There is no undue difficulty involved in this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is right, but by his reply he has re-emphasised the need for further consideration of the points I made about the Clause itself. If he will give an assurance that this matter will be looked at again in another place, and that the Government have not a closed mind on it, we shall get on a lot better.

Dr. Stross: I find myself in sympathy with the point of view expressed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in this matter, and I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who pleaded so strongly for the rights of the private individual and his garden. Obviously there are times when the authorities must go on to private residential land in order to do the work that needs doing. Indeed, I can well imagine an owner pleading for the work to be done for his sake and the sake of his neighbours.
We on this side of the House are very sensitive about the rights of private individuals. That is apparent from our pleadings. At the same time, we must temper those views with the realities of the situation, and on this occasion I could not support my hon. Friend the (Member for Workington against the point of view put by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not want to protect private property and private land because, on innumerable occasions in the House, I have heard loud cries that we must safeguard the rights of private property. Now we ask the House to do precisely that. This Clause gives right of entry and the right to take instruments on to property. Is the resident to have no protection whatever in this matter?
If there are any difficulties with water, I am sure that residents themselves will ask for something to be done. I have heard hon. Members on both sides expressing dissatisfaction at some of the things done by officialdom in such work as this, as, for instance, when workmen have stepped over into a garden to do a little work for four or five yards further on.
The Minister would be justified in accepting the Amendment. If he did, he would be giving confidence to persons using their land for residential purposes. Otherwise, they will feel that the Minister has given carte blanche for the authorities to run over their land. In my constituency this sort of thing has taken place already, and the residents would feel happier if they knew that no one could go on to their land in this way. The Minister would gain the confidence of many people in the country by accepting the Amendment and by proving that he is bringing forward the Bill in the interests of a very large number of people.

Sir D. Glover: No one more than I would like to support this Amendment if it were practical. But it is not practical. We are dealing with the problem of water, and water does not flow on agricultural land and avoid gardens. If the authorities are to guide flood water into the right channels then, whether we like it or not, they must have the power to follow it. That inevitably means that, from time to time, they will have to enter private residential property. We have had the problem in my constituency; I have seen it too often. I should like to support the Amendment, but it is not practical.

Mr. Willey: I shall try to evoke a more sympathetic response from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I do not complain of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary being ruthless, but I do complain of his being thoughtless. We believe that no one have given sufficient thought to this Clause. There are several misconceptions about it. It is suggested that water makes no distinctions and that the householder will plead for entry. But that is not what the power of entry is for. No difficulty arises if the householder appeals for help. The power of entry will not be necessary in such cases.
What we are concerned with here is the exercise of an absolute power, disregarding the wishes of the person in his own home. It is accepted that a distinction is already made, because the Government recognise that heavy equipment will cause difficulties. They therefore provide that unless it is an emergency, a drainage board must give 24 hours' notice that it wishes to use heavy

equipment and similar notice in respect of land used for residential purposes, and if officials want to break into a person's home they must also give 24 hours' notice.
All that is entirely unsatisfactory, however. If there is an emergency, then, so far as it is possible, I am prepared to allow the person in the sanctity of his home to declare that emergency, but I do not want any outsider to do it. I recognise the difficulties of the drainage boards, because one cannot, for this purpose distinguish, in separate categories, land used for residential purposes and land used for non-residential purposes, but I want to be assured that the Government have thought about this matter. I do not believe that they thought twice about the distinction between land and people's homes.
We used to get unanimous applause when we said that a man's home was his castle, and inviolate, I have complained for years about the bureaucratic government to which we are now subjected. Admitting all the difficulties and the prejudice which might be caused to a person's home if certain steps are not taken in an emergency, I should like special permission to be needed for entry in such cases. We are not concerned here with emergencies—I cannot think of a water emergency which would give 24 hours' notice—but with the ordinary operations of a drainage board. I am not convinced that the matter cannot be dealt with in a better way than that envisaged by this Clause.
It may be that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is sympathetic to the Amendment but can envisage circumstances in which it would be proper for a drainage authority to have these powers. I should like to be convinced that the Government have thought about this matter, recognise that there is a difference between going into a person's home and going upon his land for drainage purposes, and have done what they can to meet it. But they have not done so. The consideration has not occurred to the Government at all, except in the sense that we have subsection (3). Perhaps there should be provision for an application to a magistrate in such circumstances. There is no practical difficulty, because this is not an emergency. If we were dealing with an emergency, it could be said that the


Amendment would give rise to an impossible position, but even in an emergency there would have to be 24 hours' notice.

6.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is the second time that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said that there is not an emergency, because a period of 24 hours is involved. That is not an accurate assessment of a state of affairs which can arise all too often in times of flooding. It may be essential for a drainage board to take action of which it could give 24 hours' notice but which, if not taken, would lead to disastrous consequences higher up. What we are dealing with is the high and dry neighbour who may be difficult when his low and wet neighbour is already suffering considerable inconvenience.

Mr. Willey: I do not want unnecessarily to quarrel with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), because I hope to have his general support. I was distinguishing this from an emergency, because in an emergency, with no time to act, it would be unreal to make suggestions about other possible steps. I was not dealing with the situation of an emergency in which 24 hours' notice could not be given, but with the situation in which 24 hours' notice could be given, when it ceases to be an emergency in that sense, and when safeguards could be provided. I am asking the Government to say that they will consider whether in those exceptional circumstances it is possible to provide exceptional safeguards.

Mr. Vane: I cannot accept that the Government have not thought about this matter. As we have discussed it, it has become clear that the matter is more complicated than it appears at first sight and the problems are very wide, as the examples which have been quoted show. On the other hand, we think that as drafted the Bill will meet general needs, because drainage boards will have necessary powers without them being too onerous on private individuals.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked whether we would reconsider the matter when it went to another place, and I nodded assent. Second Chambers are for second looks. But my

hon. and gallant Friend did not appear to notice that I had nodded and he asked the question again. I can give no assurance, but the timetable which we envisage for the various stages of procedure can be studied again. I hope that the House will appreciate that we have thought about this matter and made certain distinctions. Some hon. Members may feel that this is not the right distinction, but I gain confidence from the fact that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) saw my point of view, and, as there are various cross-currents of feeling in the Chamber about this matter, I do not think that we can be far wrong.

Mr. Peart: I accept that there is a conflict of opinion which goes across parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) expressed his point of view. Throughout our discussions of the Bill we have allowed our Members the greatest freedom of comment and action, unlike hon. Members opposite whose comment has not been followed by action when necessary. I hope that hon. Members opposite will now show us more than sympathy. A former Prime Minister proclaimed that this was to be a property-owning democracy, and this is an issue which raises the question of the rights of individuals and their homes, and I am surprised that it has not been received with more enthusiasm by hon. Members opposite. Apart from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), hon. Members opposite have been rather muted. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has often said that hon. Members opposite believe in Tory bureaucracy and the rights of the ordinary citizen go by the board when it is a matter of Tory State policy.

Mr. Bullard: It is no use having a property-owning democracy if that property is to be flooded out.

Mr. Peart: That is quite true, and it is the tragedy of the Government that they have taken ten years to introduce this legislation which arose out of the Report of a Committee which was set up by a Labour Minister of Agriculture, who is now in another place—the former right hon. Member for Don Valley. Throughout our discussions we have


complained that the Government have been inactive.
I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have shown some sympathy for the rights of property owners affected by the powers of a drainage board. Of course, we have to strike a balance and to be practical legislators and ensure that the Bill can be administered. But I hope that on other Amendments hon. Members opposite will show some sympathy, even if they have not expressed it previously.
However, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that in another place the matter will be considered again and the Minister may be able to make practical proposals, including the suggestion of my hon. Friend that the matter might be referred to a magistrate. I hope that in another place the Bill will be carefully scrutinised by those connected with agriculture. Having received the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the matter will be considered again, we will not press the matter.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 4, after "land", to insert "at all reasonable times".
I shall not repeat the arguments already used. We are asking that the entry should be made at reasonable times. In other words, we want the legislation to be reasonable and the drainage authority to act reasonably. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment. There is nothing impracticable about it and it will not increase administrative costs—an argument used against a previous proposal. I hope that the Amendment will have all-party support and that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a very sympathetic reply.

Mr. Vane: I have great pleasure in giving the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) a very sympathetic reply. I can accept the Amendment and I agree that, although one would hope that the authorities concerned would not act unreasonably, it is very reasonable that these words, which have precedent in other drainage legislation, should find their place in this Clause.

Mr. Peart: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, I hope that this precedent will be continued in other parts of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 4, to leave out "any function" and to insert "such functions".
It may be convenient with this Amendment to discuss that in line 5, at the end to insert:
as the Minister may prescribe by statutory instrument".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Willey: This, again, is an effort to limit the scope of the provisions and not to leave them as absolute as they now are. There has already been some discussion about the desirability of limiting the operation of a board's entry and the House has decided to afford those powers. What we are now trying to do is to keep this matter under the control of the House itself, and the House could exercise its powers if a Statutory Instrument were presented to it. In other words, if it were later felt necessary to limit the powers, that could be done by a Statutory Instrument.
That would serve two purposes. First, it would keep the matter under review. One of the difficulties about legislation affecting the liberty of the subject is that a decision may be taken in certain circumstances then obtaining and may be continued even though little use is made of the powers afforded and although it becomes clear that they can be used in only limited circumstances. The Amendment would be a salutary discipline and the matter would be kept subject to review, so that if the Government received representations about certain instances they could discuss the matter with the interests affected and possibly produce a Statutory Instrument limiting the scope of the powers of entry.
The second merit of the Amendments is that they would give those of us who believe that the Government have not yet given sufficient thought to the matter the feeling that it had not been finally disposed of and that the Government could subsequently define circumstances in which the powers could be used.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is easy for the Government to accept the concept that they should take general powers and then return to the House for a definition of the circumstances in which those powers should be used. The Government's present purpose seems to be to define them as widely as possible, but this is a safeguard which hon. Members would appreciate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I very much hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the Amendments. While I am entirely in favour of safeguarding the rights of the individual in respect of entering his land, I am almost equally determined not to invite the Minister to interfere in the work of the drainage boards or their officers. The less interference from Whitehall, the better the job which will be done. It has long been established that if Ministers lay down the duties of internal drainage boards and then see that those duties are carried out, with watchdogs everywhere, all that happens is that there is a tendency to pass the buck, and then at the worst moment of all, the moment when flooding is threatening, there will be buck-passing when a decision should have been taken on the spot. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment with all the fire he can command. I agree that we are tidying up the new Clause and protecting the rights of the individual, but I would not touch these Amendments with a tong.

6.30 p.m.

Dr. Stross: I should like to have the advice of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on a specific point relating to the Heneage Committee's Report. I ask if this actually applies. That Report says, on page 54, paragraph 127:
As far as the drainage boards are concerned, whilst we do not think a statutory obligation to consult with the numerous interests who are or might be affected by a particular work would be practicable, we consider that drainage boards should develop their projects in the fullest consultation with the interests likely to be affected.
The Report goes on to speak of twenty years of experience and to suggest that this is normally done, and then it points out that there are two functions to consider.

The interests of drainage may be paramount in some cases and exactly the opposite may be paramount in others. Therefore, there must be supervision and the right of appeal by one against the other.
It seems that my hon. Friend in putting forward these Amendments would, if they were accepted, enable Parliament to supervise what is being done. We could see how it worked and change it from time to time by means of Statutory Instruments. I think there is a great deal in the argument which my hon. Friend has put forward and I should like to hear what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary thinks about it.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: May I join in on this? I am not an expert on this rather esoteric question; I cannot pretend to be as familiar with the Act of 1930 as I ought to be; but I am in general sympathy with the sentiments of the Opposition now on this kind of point. It seems to me that the decisive thing before we let that sentiment move us into action is this; suppose the Amendment were passed and the Government bound to introduce a Statutory Instrument to define the functions for which the powers might be used, would it, in the Government's view, be impossible to make a list of functions and so define it as to make that list any smaller than it is under the Act of 1930? If not, it seems that we are talking on an academic point in the silliest and emptiest sense; but if such a distinction might be valid, I think the Government have a case to meet.

Mr. C. Hughes: I want strongly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in these Amendments and to make the point that when the Executive by legislation seeks powers which make inroads on the liberty of the individual, it then becomes one of the fundamental duties of this House to examine carefully what is being done to safeguard that liberty.
It is the primary and historic duty of this House to stand between the Executive and the individual. We often tend to allow powers of this kind to slip through our fingers without sufficient thought. In isolation, these powers do not seem to be very much, but in toto they can be perilous to democracy and


liberty in this country. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said a very strange thing for a Conservative when he said that he did not wish for Parliamentary intervention in this case. I conceive it to be one of our Parliamentary duties precisely to intervene in that way to defend the individual, as is the intention of this Amendment.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I never suggested for a moment that Parliament should not say what it wants to say. What I was suggesting was that it would be a great mistake to pass the responsibility to Whitehall and not to leave it in the local district.

Mr. Hughes: What the Amendment seeks to do is to retain the right in the hands of Parliament and not to release it to Whitehall. In my view, we should never release our rights in matters of this kind without very careful thought

Mr. Vane: I hope I can help the House with what I can say. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) gave two reasons why he would like these powers of drainage boards set out in some form of Statutory Instrument. I hope he will agree that the first reason he gave, which was to keep the matter under review by this House, was the most important of the two. It certainly is a point at which we should look.
We must remember that here we are not breaking new ground. River boards have for some time had the powers we are now considering giving to drainage boards. There is no precedent in the earlier legislation to make arrangements that they shall all be set out in a Statutory Instrument. I am not saying that that is absolutely a reason why we should not think afresh, but, on the other hand, there is experience behind us that this has not given rise to irritation or grievance which might encourage us to think of devising some new way.
It would admittedly be more elaborate and when we come to the question of keeping it under review by the House, unless we intend to have periodical Orders brought in for affirmative Resolution, there is no reason why the House, having once accepted a certain set of Regulations, should necessarily find

itself intimately connected very much more than if we leave the words of the Clause as we think them appropriate. I am not trying to pretend that there is no distinction between what we put in a Bill and what we put in a Regulation, but, if we want a continuous review such as the hon. Member has in mind, we should have to accept the fact that it would not be a once-for-all set of Regulations.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) spoke about consultation. Of course we should normally expect consultation between a river board and those who obviously were to be concerned with the work it had in hand. One would hope that they would always have reasonable consultation and try to foresee emergencies, but we have to accept the fact that water sometimes faces these authorities with an emergency in which they have to act very quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) spoke of the Schedule in the 1930 Act. I think that, in general, the position has been to have legislation on drainage widely drawn and permissive in character because it is appreciated that circumstances vary so enormously between one part of the country and another. It is very difficult to be precise about what sets of circumstances every drainage authority will have to face. The last thing we want to do when we have given a drainage authority its main task, which is to get on with drainage work, would be to be so precise that in any provision we rule it out from doing what in its judgment is right and proper at any given time.
As there is no great novelty in what we propose, as the suggestions would undoubtedly mean another step and therefore be a great deal more complicated—complicated, I think, to frame—and, if the House is to have close contact, they would have to be brought before it on a number of occasions, and as I have previously said we are willing to look at the timetable set out in this Clause, I hope the House will agree that there is no advantage to be gained in trying to set out what we have in mind by way of statutory Regulations.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sorry to say that I find the Minister's reply thoroughly unsatisfactory and


quite unconvincing. He gave two reasons for resisting the Amendment. He said that we do not want to be too precise and then said that if the Amendment were accepted it would involve taking a further step.
In regard to the first objection, I think that we want to be precise. Where the rights of the public are concerned, where the liberty of the subject is involved and where rights of entry on private land are given to a local authority of any kind or to any bureaucratic body, we want to be precise. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory for the Minister to resist this Amendment on the ground that we do not want to be too precise. I think we have gone too far already in giving powers of this kind to all kinds of local authorities and semi-bureaucratic bodies. We should put a stop to it. I think it the duty of Parliament to watch with the greatest vigilance any further invasion of the ordinary rights of private individuals.
It seems totally unsatisfactory for the Minister in this new Clause to ask that carte blanche should be given to enable any authorised person producing "some duly authenticated document"—whatever that means—to
enter any land for the purpose of exercising any function.
If one looks at the Bill one finds that many functions are given to drainage boards in respect of which they would not want to enter on any land under any circumstances.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The functions referred to here are the functions given to a drainage board under the Act of 1930. The relevant Section of that Act is Section 34, where the powers of the drainage boards and the nature of the job they have to do are laid down quite clearly. It is in connection with them that this power is sought and "a person authorised" would be a person who had to see that the work is carried out.

Mr. Fletcher: I gather that if that intervention means anything it is intended to support my argument for precision. I gather that what the hon. Gentleman says is that if there should be any power of entry it should be limited to the functions required to be exercised under Section 34 of the Act

of 1930. But that is not what the new Clause says.
The Clause says that a person producing "some duly authenticated document"—whatever that means—can
…enter any land for the purpose of exercising any function of the board under the Act of 1930.
If the hon. Member is assuming that that was limited to the purpose of exercising any function under Section 34 of the 1930 Act, that would be one thing, but the new Clause does not say that. It says
…any function of the board under the Act of 1930.
What I was about to observe was that there are plenty of other functions given to the board by the Act of 1930 that are quite outside the scope of Section 34 of that Act. Therefore, on the hon. Gentleman's argument alone, this wording is far too sweeping, and wide. If it is intended to limit it to Section 34, let us say so—

Mr. Bullard: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the functions are?

6.45 p.m.

Fr. Fletcher: If I had the Act here I could read all of them out, but I do not think that you, Mr. Speaker, would welcome my explaining for the benefit of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) what all the functions of the board are under the 1930 Act. They are dealt with in all the other Sections of that Act coming before Section 34. I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Member's objection.
The Minister also said that acceptance of the Amendments would add another complication. I know that bureaucracy is always anxious, if it can, to simplify matters at the expense of the public, but the duty of Parliament is to prevent that, and to place a precise limit on any invasion of or interference with the ordinary rights of privacy, particularly with regard to entry on to land and private premises.
It does not worry me if this involves the Minister in having to take further steps. I am all in favour of making the Government take additional steps if those steps are necessary to ensure adequate Parliamentary control in the interests of the public. I therefore submit that neither of the objections put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary is in any


way satisfactory, and I hope that when we come to divide we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn).

Mr. Willey: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I am dissatisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I share the difficulty of the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn). I cannot claim to be an expert on land drainage matters, but I should not like to say what precisely are the functions of the board under the 1930 Act.
I do not think that it is good enough, if I may say so to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), to refer to a particular Section of the 1930 Act—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member must know by now—he has been here long enough, and so has his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher)—that in most Acts there are certain Sections that deal with powers and functions and other Sections that do not. All I suggest is that all this really means is that those Sections of the 1930 Act that deal with functions and powers are those referred to in this Clause.

Mr. Willey: If that is the case, why do not the provisions in the present Clause accord with that? Why should we have the present reference to
…any function of the board under the Act of 1930"?
I should image that it is quite arguable that there are matters under the 1930 Act that are wider than those referred to by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely but, without pursuing the matter further, I should have thought that one could agree generally that this is not a very happy reference to functions when we are considering powers of entry. I should have thought that it was now commonly agreed that we should limit powers of entry as much as possible.
The hon. Member says, "Don't touch your own Amendments with a tong". That is difficult advice to follow, but he gives it on the ground that it would lead to a great deal of bureaucratic interference. We are not here concerned with bureaucratic interference but with the rights of the House. We should not evade the

issue. We want to keep this within the power of the House.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely says that the better course would be to tidy up this Clause, but that is the very thing that we are failing to do. We are dissatisfied with the Clause. We have had one Amendment accepted, for which we are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary, but we are not tidying up the Clause. These Amendments would tidy up the Clause a little, but here we face the position that, though the Clause has been accepted by the House, we on this side are not very satisfied with it, and want to reserve to ourselves the right to improve it.
Another circumstance supports the Amendments. If we consider the powers of entry of a river board, we look to the River Boards Act, but, as has already been mentioned, we there find provisions that are different from the provisions in this Clause. We do not have a re-enactment for drainage boards at large of the provisions of Section 16 of the River Boards Act; we have new provisions. That Section 16 refers to functions under the 1930 Act, so I should have thought it undesirable to have different provisions in relation to different drainage authorities.
More than anything else, we should be realistic and practical about this. Whom are we considering? We are considering, not the river board but a lesser authority. It is quite pernicious to say that because river boards have been accorded wide powers of entry we should also accord those powers to the inland drainage boards. That does not follow at all. We should inquire to what extent it is necessary, if it be necessary. If the case is made out, and in view of the acceptance of the Clause we must accept that, we must ask to what extent it is necessary to extend these powers to the inland drainage boards. It does not follow that those boards should necessarily have the same powers as are accorded to the river boards.
On those grounds I think that the better thing is to define the functions in this way. Where we are dealing with the liberties of the subject we want to define those functions as narrowly as possible, and the narrowest definition that we can at present write in is to say that we do not accept the present wide


definition, but that the definition will be made subsequently and the House will have an opportunity to accept it or to reject it.
For those reasons, unless the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to give a better assurance than he has yet given, we shall have no alternative but to divide the House. If we do so, it will

Division No. 146.]
AYES
[6.52 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pitman, I. J.


Aitken, W. T.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Allason, James
Hastings, Stephen
Pott, Percivall


Atkins, Humphrey
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Barlow, Sir John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Batsford, Brian
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Berkeley, Humphry
Hobson, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bishop, F. P,
Holland, Philip
Rees, Hugh


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Box, Donald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Roots, William


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Braine, Bernard
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Sharples, Richard


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, M.


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Buck, Antony
Jackson, John
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Bullard, Denys
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Smithers, Peter


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jennings, J. C.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Chataway, Christopher
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Tapsell, Peter


Cole, Norman
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Leavey. J. A.
Teeling, William


Cordle, John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Coulson, J. M.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Cunningham, Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Loveys, Walter H.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Dance, James
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
MacArthur, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Duncan, Sir James
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Duthie, Sir William
Maddan, Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Douglas
Walder, David


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Walker, Peter


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton
Whitelaw, William


Finlay, Graeme
Montgomery, Fergus
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Freeth, Denzil
Morgan, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wise, A. R.


Gibson-Watt, David
Nugent, Sir Richard
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Woollam, John


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, west)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Partridge, E.



Grimston, Sir Robert
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Mr. Noble and


Gurden, Harold

Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Forman, J. C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Blyton, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grey, Charles


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dempsey, James
Hannan, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Diamond, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret


Callaghan, James
Dodds, Norman
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Chapman, Donald
Driberg, Tom
Hilton, A. V.


Collick, Percy
Fletcher, Eric
Holt, Arthur

be because we object to the generality of the provisions that at present appear in the Clause, and to the Government's lack of response in providing safeguards where they should be provided.

Question put, That "any function" stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 108.

Houghton, Douglas
Milne, Edward J.
Small, William


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moody, A. S.
Snow, Julian


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mort, D. L.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Moyle, Arthur
Stonehouse, John


Jeger, George
Neal, Harold
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, George


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Symonds, J. B.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parker, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Frederick
Thornton, Ernest


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pentland, Norman
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Warbey, William


Logan, David
Prentice, R. E.
Watkins, Tudor


Loughlin, Charles
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Whitlock, William


MacColl, James
Proctor, W. T.
Willey, Frederick


McInnes, James
Randall, Harry
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Manuel, A. C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mapp, Charles
Robertson, J. (Paisley)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Ross, William
Woof, Robert


Marsh, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Mayhew, Christopher
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mendelson, J. J.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Mr. Lawson and Dr. Broughton.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 13, to leave out "twenty-four hours" and to insert "seven days".
This is the last Amendment which seeks to improve the new Clause and to protect the rights of the individual. There is no doubt about the meaning of the Amendment. There is no question of any legal interpretation. We wish to substitute seven days for 24 hours.
If the Amendment were accepted, subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause would read:
Admission to any land used for residential purposes and, except in an emergency, admission with heavy equipment to any other Hand, shall not be demanded as of right under this section unless the notice required by subsection (1) of this section has been given not less than seven days before the intended entry
We think that 24 hours is too short. It is rather arbitrary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) did not feel able to support me on a previous Amendment. I would refer him to page 54 of the Heneage Report, where there is a reference to the need for the fullest consultation with the interests concerned. In other words, there should at all times be co-operation between the parties concerned, and the drainage boards and those who seek powers of entry should consult the people affected. There should be a partnership, and we are therefore seeking to provide time for consultation before action is taken.
The new Clause will affect the rights of the owners of residential property. In addition, it will affect the movement of heavy equipment. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will again be sympathetic. He was sympathetic when I moved a previous Amendment which referred to being reasonable. I hope that he will be reasonable now and accept the Amendment.
I also hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have expressed concern about these powers of entry will support the Amendment. We do not seek to restrict the work of the drainage boards. We recognise that in an emergency it is often necessary to act quickly, but we do not think that the work of the drainage boards will be frustrated if the Amendment is accepted. We accept that it is important to have a proper drainage policy for a particular district or area, but, at the same time, we feel that the rights of the individual must be safeguarded.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who has expressed concern about striking a balance between the needs of the community and the rights of the individual, will regard seven days as not being unreasonable and accept the Amendment.

Mr. Symonds: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this reasonable Amendment. Suppose the Minister had a piece of land attached to his house and he was given 24 hours' notice to move some articles off that land. He might have difficulty in moving them, and he would not be pleased. I think you will agree with me that you


would not like to be given such short notice. You may have heavy equipment on that land. The drainage board may want to take a short-cut between the houses and if your property was affected I am sure that you would feel sore about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. Symonds: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure that the Minister would feel very sore if he were told to move some of his property within 24 hours. If he had a tent in the garden for use by his children, and he was given seven days' notice to move that tent, he could send his children off to the seaside to enjoy themselves while he got on with the job, but I am sure that he would not like to be told to move it within 24 hours.
There are times when it is necessary to take action without adequate warning. Sometimes it matters not what obstacles are in the way, they must be moved, but I consider it unfair in ordinary circumstances to give only 24 hours' notice.
I hope that the Minister will consider the proposed new Clause from the point of view of the private individual. Consider the inconvenience which 24 hours' notice might cause the owners of residential property. The period for which we are asking is not unusual, and if owners of property are given the longer period for which we are asking they will be only too pleased to co-operate with the drainage boards. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that he will be able either to accept the Amendment, although perhaps not in the words put down, or that a similar Amendment will be made when the Bill goes to another place. Unless this is done, I shall have to go into the Division Lobby in support of this Amendment, if hon. Members opposite take it to a Division.
I am quite certain that there is nothing in the Clause which would preclude seven days' notice being given. It is only reasonable to do so. I know of nothing more annoying to farmers or householders than having people arriving

to do jobs without notice. As the Clause stands, what does 24 hours' notice mean? Is it from the time that a person signs a letter, from the date of the postmark, or from the time the person receives the letter? I know that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General would be the first to admit that one cannot always rely on mail being delivered by the first post. It may well be delayed, and the letter received after the bulldozer arrives to do the job. Twenty-four hours is no notice at all. Nobody knows the basis upon which it was fixed.

Mr. Vane: For some Members, 24 hours is long enough to put down an Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: My hon. Friend knows the procedure of the House far better than I do, and he would be able to catch me out.
This Clause does not deal with emergencies. It would be perfectly fair to say that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment as it is. It might have to have words added, such as "except in the case of emergency". Everyone would accept that, particularly in the case of flooding, there are times when immediate access must be permitted to all premises. But that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the ordinary procedure of drainage improvement operations and the proper drainage of the country. In 99 per cent. of the cases there should be no difficulty in the drainage authorities giving at least seven days' notice of their desire to carry out the work.
I am sure that the Minister must realise that this is a reasonable Amendment and I hope, therefore, that he will find it possible to give me an assurance that either here, or in another place, the principle of the Amendment will be carried out, otherwise I shall not be able to support him.

7.15 p. m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I support very strongly the arguments put forward from this side of the House and also by some hon. Members opposite. I hope that the Government will have the common sense and wisdom to be governed by past experience. We have had many arguments advanced during consideration of these Amendments


about the rights of private property owners, private landowners and of a property-owning democracy. I want to advance the argument that we should approach this Amendment from the standpoint of fair play.
I do not consider that the Government are being fair in limiting the time on this question of entry to land to 24 hours. Surely those responsible for drafting the Bill could not have realised what was entailed by giving only 24 hours' notice. Seven days' notice is little enough, considering the experience that we had in 1941, when a state of emergency was declared.
Then the Defence of the Realm Act was put into operation without any consultations. We had to accept that the nation was in a state of emergency. Work was started on opencast coal mining, and I know the heartburning, anxiety and trouble that we had during that period under the Defence of the Realm Act; but I will not go into that now.
Later, when the state of emergency was over, the Government considered legislation. The first principle, when we then discussed legislation to protect the farmer, was that of consultation. That has been agreed. The next was that there should be a period of notice before the right of entry was conceded. What happened? The Ministry of Fuel and Power came like thieves in the night. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) know that we had a protracted struggle with the Government to protect the right of the farmer against entry on his land before he had been given reasonable notice. Let us learn a lesson from that experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven referred to the question of a private garden behind a house and said that there is to be only 24 hours' notice before the drainage board or the river board come along to start work. If I may be allowed to make a personal reference, I have a small back garden which I cherish.

Sir D. Glover: A lovely one.

Mr. Brown: I reclaimed it from waste land. It took me almost thirty years to do so, and woe betide the man who

comes along and tells me, "I am giving you 24 hours' notice to enter your garden." I do not think that it is fair or just to give just 24 hours' notice when one has spent years working in one's garden or on one's land.
Certain things have to be done. We are not opposed to drainage, or to the Bill. We want to see the implementation of the Heneage Committee's Report. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who represents a constituency next to mine, knows that we had a fierce battle there, not many years ago, on the question of land drainage. Now is the opportunity. If we are attempting to put on the Statute Book legislation which will help the agricultural industry to drain its land, let us be fair in doing so.
I spoke about my own land. At the moment there is a big drainage scheme coming along and the main drain will run down my garden and upset the whole caboodle, as the saying is in Lancashire. If I am given only 24 hours' notice there will be a heck of a row. We ought to approach this from the point of view of fair play and justice. I do not think that it is fair to give a farmer or a landowner, or those who are on any land which has to be drained, 24 hours' notice.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows, although he does not live in a mining area, the trouble we have had and which we shall have unless we play fair in the legislation which we put upon the Statute Book. There are two things which stand out uppermost. The first is fair play and justice, and the second is to have a proper period of time. In my judgment, 24 hours is not sufficient time for a farmer or a landowner to clear implements off the land. He should be given plenty of time, and if the Government do that they will win the admiration of those people who will have to give up something.

Mr. Vane: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). May I tell him that in my childhood I lived in a mining area. When deciding such matters as this, we have to be guided, not by technical words, but by signs of fair play. Unfortunately, water does not always play the game according to the rules and we must also bear that in mind. The hon. Member for Ince spoke


about opencast coal mining, but there the problem does not present quite the same element of urgency as rising water levels after heavy rainfall in certain areas.

Mr. T. Brown: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not press that argument too strongly. Experience shows that there is a good argument against giving short notice, because in the case of opencast coal it brought a great deal of condemnation on a Government Department, and we wish to prevent that from happening if possible.

Mr. Vane: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to press that point. But I think that we should be wrong if we did not give consideration to the damage and trouble that water can cause at short notice. Therefore, the notice for which we have provided in this Clause, which incidentally, is a minimum—is something hon. Members must bear in mind.
Some hon. Members have said that a 24 hour minimum notice for entering residential property is too short, but if 24 hours is too short I am sure that a period of seven days is too long. I do not think that the proviso, "except in an emergency", would apply to the entry into residential property, as the Clause is drafted. Even though hon. Members may say that 24 hours is too short, they must, I think, agree—bearing in mind the effects of flood waters—that a period of seven days would be too long.
I said earlier that we are ready to look again at the timetable. I am not prepared to accept that the inclusion of this Amendment would improve the Bill, rather the reverse considering recent experiences of flooding. None the less I have said, and I repeat, that there are other stages in the progress of the Bill and we shall look at this timetable again. In drafting the Clause we followed a precedent. We do not want to be bound rigidly by precedent, even the precedent of the terms of the 1948 Act which was a Measure introduced by the Socialist Government, and which hon. Members opposite have been criticising. I do not want to introduce too strong a party element into these discussions, but I cannot resist reminding hon. Members opposite that in relation to the last Amendment all their criticism of

our proposals is equally valid against their own Act of 1948.

Sir D. Glover: That is no defence. That was a Socialist Measure.

Mr. Vane: I thought it appropriate, on the last Amendment on the Clause, to call the attention of the House to the question of dates.
There is something to be said for having the powers which we give to drainage boards comparable with those given to river boards. We do not want to complicate administration and the work of those who have to concern themselves with river boards and drainage boards. We should not too lightly depart from conditions which have proved not unsatisfactory in the case of river boards. I am sure we should be wrong to accept this Amendment. If we altered this period to seven days it would not be something which, in case of emergency, the people in the area would thank us for doing. I appreciated the picturesque way in which the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) described the tent on the lawn. The hon. Member lives in hill country and knows how streams can rise—

Mr. Symonds: The Minister has referred to the way in which water can rise. Surely, when an emergency occurs, the Clause would permit the necessary action to be taken. It is not to deal with an emergency that we are asking for this Amendment.

Mr. Vane: If the hon. Member will look at the Clause as it would be amended, he will see that that would be the case. In the circumstances I invite the House to reject the Amendment, but I remind hon. Members of what I have said about the timetable. I can give no assurance, but we are prepared to look at the timetable again.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I do not want to "upset the whole caboodle". This has been a pleasant afternoon in many ways, but I think that the Minister has overlooked one point. It is that the success of this Measure will depend on the willing co-operation of people whose land has to be drained, and of the drainage boards and river boards, Unless there is a feeling of confidence between them, the work will be impeded


to a considerable extent. The Government and the officials of the Ministry—I am thinking more about the officials who are permanent than about the Government who, thank goodness, are temporary—will not get support, particularly from the agricultural community, if people start barging in at 24 hours' notice when longer notice could have been given.
There was a reference to the garden of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and we have been told about the rivers rising. I do not possess a garden but the land where I live is heavy clay. If heavy machinery is brought on to that sort of land without proper notice being given, it can lead to a lot of quite unnecessary irritation. I do not want farmers to be irritated, or for there to be a feeling of bitterness between drainage people and the farmers. I believe that a spirit of co-operation should exist between them. I do not know whether seven days is the right period, but I am always in favour of splitting the difference. I do not know what my hon. Friends propose to do, but I think that 24 hours is too short. The very shortness of the period could exacerbate feelings and that, I feel, must be avoided.

Mr. R. H. Turton: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that in an emergency action would have to be taken within 24 hours. That is not excluded from this Clause, which says that in an emergency action could be taken without any time elapsing at all. I think that seven days is far too long, and that a reasonable compromise would be something like 48 hours, which is frequently the period of time laid down in respect of powers of entry. If the Government could say that, in another place, they would alter the period of 24 hours to 48, or if the Minister could tell us that now, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House would be satisfied over what is a minor but an important point.

Mr. Willey: I join with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in appealing to the Government to give a specific undertaking. That is what the House requires. I hope that the Minister will give us something which we have not had from the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) referred

to this having been a pleasant afternoon. I would add that the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be flagging. I hope that he will think about this again and give us a positive assurance that this provision will be altered in some way which would improve it.
This Clause came about because the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) raised the question of heavy machinery and the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the 1946 Act which provided for 24 hours' notice in the case of residential property. The Minister took that period from the 1946 Act and said that it would apply to the bringing in of heavy machinery.
Special consideration should be given to land that is used for residential purposes. This land should be treated differently from other land and there should be a different notice and a different time for that notice.
7.30 p.m.
It cannot possibly be suggested that seven days is too long, especially when heavy machinery is under consideration. There is no reason why 24 hours should be the length of the notice given and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said, when considering operations using heavy machinery, there should be provision for proper notice. That would give an assurance that the boards employing the machinery were employing it properly.
I will not repeat all the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this longer notice, except to mention that the Government appear to be under a misapprehension. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of water knowing no boundaries and made similar picturesque statements. We all appreciate that, in an emergency, special actions need to be taken, but that argument should not be called in aid to show why the notice of seven days is too long.
Perhaps seven days is too long, and perhaps there is a better time limit. But one thing is certain: 24 hours is too short. If the Government are not prepared to say that seven days is right, they must concede that 24 hours is too short, and the least they can do to satisfy hon. Members who proposed seven days is to say that they will seriously reconsider the matter. We must have an undertaking that in another place the


notice will be extended. Unless we get that assurance, we must express our disapproval of the Clause and support the Amendment. I see no evidence, technical or otherwise, to show that seven days is too long, provided it is clearly understood that this is not legislating for an emergency.
This is a technical matter and I am willing to be convinced by technical arguments that seven days is too long. But we have had no such technical argument. We are, in the main, dealing with the bringing in of heavy machinery, and no one can seriously say that, in these circumstances, 24 hours is adequate notice.

Sir D. Glover: Sir D. Glover rose—

Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that the hon. Member had already spoken on this question.

Mr. Bullard: I have been cited by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) as having been the culprit who originally brought this matter before the Committee, and I wish to explain my point of view. For most of the purposes I have in mind, seven days' notice would not be too long. Naturally, if an emergency arose, there would have to be a different time period—and it is well known that in an emergency the boards operate fairly swiftly. Therefore, the question of an emergency would seem to be adequately covered.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give a strong assurance that he will alter the notice time as it now stands, for he must be aware that all we are endeavouring to do is to safeguard the rights of the individual.
I am the chairman of a drainage board and sometimes we have to do work on private residential property. Many difficulties have often to be overcome. Obstacles have to be removed, flower beds have to be covered up, dog kennels have to be taken care of, and I should be prepared to risk the sacrifice of holding up the work for a short time while matters such as these were dealt with amicably. For that reason, I do not consider that seven days is too long.

Mr. Peart: I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has not responded to the pleas that have been made to the Government. In view of that lack of

response, we shall have to press the matter to a Division. I regret the necessity for this, because there have been eloquent appeals from hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) made an appeal as a practical farmer who has had considerable experience with drainage matters in his own area in East Anglia. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) who has taken a great interest in this Bill, pleaded with the Government to make a concession. We have also had an appeal from the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who speaks with great experience both as a practical gardener and as one who took an active part in our discussions on opencast coal mining. My hon. Friend reminded me of the way we have always sought to protect the rights of farmers, owner-occupiers and householders, and in the Amendment under discussion we are seeking further to protect the public.
I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, and after consulting the Parliamentary Secretary, will be able to give a more reasonable reply. It is not sufficient for him merely to fob us off. We have asked for an assurance and so far we have not been given one. We are not being unreasonable because, as has been pointed out, powers exist to cope with emergencies. This is a non-party matter and I hope that all hon. Members will support the Amendment because we intend to divide the House unless the Minister gives a more reasonable assurance.

Mr. Soames: I do not know if I can be of any further help. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) suggested that if the Amendment were carried, and seven days substituted for 24 hours, boards could enter land used for residential purposes in an emergency within seven days. As the Clause is at present worded, 24 hours' notice must be given—emergency or no emergency—unless boards are invited to enter land used for residential purposes. When it comes to the admission of heavy equipment, there is the proviso,
…except in an emergency, admission with heavy equipment to any other land, shall not be demanded as of right under this section unless the notice required by subsection (1)…


In any circumstances, the admission to land used for residential purposes must be by 24 hours' notice.
It is inevitable that the time limit will be a matter of opinion as to what is best—24 hours, 36 hours or, perhaps, 48 hours—but I strongly believe that seven days is too long. To empower river boards to enter land used for residential purposes on seven days' notice is, I believe, too long and, therefore, I am certain that the Amendment is wrong, and I cannot ask the House to accept it.
It is a matter of judgment, and I will give my attention to this time limit before the Bill reaches another place, to

Division No. 147.]
AYES
[7.40 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pott, Percivall


Aitken, W. T.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Prior, J. M. L.


Allason, James
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Atkins, Humphrey
Hendry, Forbes
Pym, Francis


Barlow, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Hobson, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Holland, Philip
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bell, Ronald
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees, Hugh


Berkeley, Humphry
Hughes-Young, Michael
Renton, David


Bishop, F. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Box, Donald
Iremonger, T. L.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Boyle, Sir Edward
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Braine, BernardJackson, John
Shaw, M.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Bryan, Paul
Jennings, J. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Buck, Antony
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smithers, Peter


Bullard, Denys
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kitson, Timothy
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Leavey, J. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cary, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Chataway, Christopher
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Cole, Norman
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Loveys, Walter H.
Teeling, William


Costain, A. P.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Temple, John M.


Coulson, J. M.
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crowder, F. P.
McLaren, Martin
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Curran, Charles
McMaster, Stanley R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Currie, G. B. H.
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vickers, Miss Joan


Deedes, W. F.
Marshall, Douglas
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


du Cann, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Duncan, Sir James
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walder, David


Duthie, Sir William
Mills, Stratton
Walker, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Morgan, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Finlay, Graeme
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wise, A. R.


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Rt. Hon. WilliamPannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woollam, John


Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.
Worsley, Marcus


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth



Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Pitman, I. J.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Blyton, William
Brown, Thomas (Ince)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Callaghan, James


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boyden, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara


Bacon, Miss Alice
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Chapman, Donald

see whether it would not be better to substitute some different period for 24 hours. I cannot give the House an assurance that I will change it, because I am not sure that 24 hours is not, perhaps, the best answer. It will be looked at and I will take advice on the point between now and a later stage. Nevertheless, I am sure that seven days is too long and, having given the assurance I have given, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, That "twenty-four hours" stand part of the Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 107.

Collick, Percy
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Ross, William


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Logan, David
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Driberg, Tom
McInnes, James
Sorensen, R. W.


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stonehouse, John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Sylvester, George


Grey, Charles
Marsh, Richard
Symonds, J. B.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Milne, Edward J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, Ernest


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mort, D. L.
Wade, Donald


Hilton, A. V.
Moyle, Arthur
Warbey, William


Holman, Percy
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, Tudor


Holt, Arthur
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Houghton, Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jeger, George
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Prentice, R. E.



Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Proctor, W. T.
Mr. Irving and Mr. Ifor Davies.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(POWER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TRIBUNAL TO MAKE ORDERS DEALING WITH NEW DISCHARGES OF WATER ON TO AGRICULTURAL LAND.)

(1) Any owner or occupier of agricultural land who claims that by reason of the development of any land there is a new discharge of water on to agricultural land owned or occupied by him, whether directly or indirectly (including discharge into a watercourse which results in the flooding or waterlogging of agricultural land), may apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal for an order under this section.

(2) On any such application, the Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, by order require the person who in the opinion of the Tribunal is responsible for the new discharge to do all or any of the following things, and within such time or times and in such manner, as may be specified in the order namely:—

(a) to cease or moderate the new discharge;
(b) to carry out remedial or preventive works;
(c) to pay compensation for any loss or damage incurred by the applicant by reason of the new discharge during the two years preceding the application (including any reduction in the value of his interest in the land);

and it shall be the duty of the person against whom any such order is made to comply with the order.

(3) In this section:—

(a) "Development" means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, drainage or other operations in, on or over land (whether by the Crown or a Government department or a public or local authority

or by any other person) and includes the construction, widening, surfacing or improvement of any road;
(b) "new discharge" means any discharge which in the opinion of the Agricultural Land Tribunal commenced or increased on or after such date (being a date not later than the thirty-first day of December nineteen hundred and sixty-one) as the Minister shall by order appoint.

(4) Section forty-three of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of Part III of this Act.

(5) This section shall apply without prejudice to any other remedy which may be open to an owner or occupier of agricultural land.

(6) Nothing in this section shall prejudice or affect the provisions of any enactment requiring the consent of a river board to the discharge of water into a watercourse or the exercise by a river board of any statutory power, authority or jurisdiction vested in or exercisable by it.—[Mr. J. Wells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. J. Wells: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The first object of those of us who have put forward the new Clause is to try to protect the rural community from the urban run-off and the run-off from roadways and the like. Many farmers are suffering from run-off from Air Force and civil runways and new development of various kinds. It is felt that to give the farmers concerned a fair deal, the developers and those who change the nature of land adjacent to farm land should pay a fair and reasonable share of compensation to the farming community.
I fully realise that the whole concept of town and country planning is at the bottom of this matter, but there is a feeling in the country districts that many planning authorities are far too urban-minded and that they do not live up to the realities of rural life. It is, therefore, desirable that there should be a safeguard for the farming community. That is what we seek to provide in the new Clause.
It may be said that remedies are already open to the rural community and that Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, gives some safeguard to the rural community. This is not strictly true, because, until the new Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Bill becomes law, the river boards will have taken no cognisance of farm ditches and the concept of river boards taking an interest in farm ditches is quite new.
It may be said that the Public Health Act, 1936, deals adequately with this matter, but this is not strictly so, because local authorities have in the past dealt entirely with drainage as it affects public health and not as it benefits the farming community from the strictly agricultural viewpoint. A third let-out for the farmer might be said to lie in common law, but ordinary courts of law do not have the necessary expert knowledge of rural matters. It is, therefore, our suggestion that the Agricultural Land Tribunal should come into the picture as we propose.
There are many extremely good voluntary understandings between highway authorities and the various river authorities, and, indeed, between highway authorities and the adjacent farmers and landowners. We are seeing a vast expansion of the highway programme. There are new and wider roads everywhere and many satisfactory voluntary arrangements are being made. I suggest, however, that highway authorities in some parts of the country should be under a definite statutory obligation to look after the interests of the rural communities on to whose land they are dig-charging water. It is, therefore, with the object of protecting the rural community from the discharge of other urban water, whether from roads, buildings, Air Force runways or any other cause, that we introduce the new Clause.

Sir D. Glover: I support the new Clause, because one of the great troubles of our drainage legislation is that there are far too many instances of powers which are permissive. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has talked about the rural areas and the spilling of water from buildings and the like, which happens all over the country. Wherever new housing estates are going up, there is increasingly a heavier weight of water arriving in the lower areas at a far quicker rate than ever happened in the past. Some of the cost of the drainage should, therefore, devolve upon the authorities in the areas from which the water arrives.
I particularly support the new Clause because within the next ten years the new town of Skelmersdale will probably be built just over the border of my constituency. It will have a population of 80,000 people. Nearly all the water from it will drain either into my constituency and into the area of the Crossens Internal Drainage Board or into the constituency of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) and into the area of the Croston Internal Drainage Board. The small agricultural and rural communities in the areas of those boards will be faced with the increasing cost of getting rid of the water, which will arise solely as a result of the building of the new town of Skelmersdale.
I know that the new town corporation has the permissive power to pay something towards the cost that is incurred, but it is asking a great deal of the generosity of people to do it from the kindness of their hearts when there is no compulsion upon them to do it. That is why I welcome the new Clause, because it would specify an authority to determine how much should be paid.
I do not say that the new Clause is worded in a manner that is acceptable to the Government, but it is its object that we wish to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that the Clause has a great deal of substance. There is considerable ill-feeling all over the country. In my constituency, without the new town of Skelmersdale, there is the town of Ormskirk, a town of 20,000 people where housing estates and vast numbers of houses are built year by year. Because it is situated on a tiny knoll,


the water still runs into the area of the Crossen Internal Drainage Board, but nobody in Ormskirk pays a penny and nobody has power to ask Ormskirk to do so. The new town corporation of Skelmersdale has the permissive power. Ormskirk does not have even the permissive power, because it is not affected by an internal drainage board. Thus there is injustice between the point from which the water comes and the people who have to pay the cost.
I hope that, even at this late stage of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consider whether a Clause on these lines could not be introduced in another place to bring into this sphere of our legislation justice which does not at present exist.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I do not always find it agreeable to try to help a Government supporter's Clause, but in this instance there is much to be said for the case which has been put. In my part of the country, we suffer from two potential sources of drainage responsibility, which is a product of our particular situation which needs attention in the light of what has just been said. I refer to the immense amount of building in the form of additions to old towns in my part of Staffordshire, which are the receiving areas for the big overspill decanting process that is taking place.
Furthermore, looking a little way ahead, through my part of the country we shall see the prolongation of the motorways. To the extent that they are conductors of storm water—I cannot think of any better phrase—there is substance in what has been said. In cases where responsibility might be the subject of argument, we would be well advised to produce machinery for proper conciliation at this stage rather than leave it until later, when there might be difficulties in assessing responsibility.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I should like to add a few words in support of the Clause, and particularly in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) has said. Storm water not only results in the flooding of agricultural land, but causes considerable difficulty to internal drainage boards. I should like to add

one more example to those which have been quoted. It is from Letchworth, where there is a large new town just outside the area of the Ivel Drainage Board.
As a result of new building, storm water has caused flooding for a considerable period. Discussions have taken place between Letchworth Council and the drainage board, as a result of which the council has agreed to build a balancing reservoir, as it is called, which will be a fairly sizeable structure and is evidence of the strength of the argument. In spite of that, however, there is still considerable capital work to be done on the ditches in the area of the Ivel Drainage Board as a result of storm water flooding in from the new development at Letchworth.
The problem has to be taken seriously. I am well aware, from a letter which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has been kind enough to send me, that there are difficulties about introducing legislation. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend to consider the case in which storm water from a new development area may cause flooding and, unlike the amicable example which I have quoted, of the Letchworth Council and the Ivel Drainage Board, there may be disagreement between a drainage board and a town council concerning a contribution by the town council towards capital works which must be carried out as a result of new discharge of water from newly developed areas.
I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can represent, at least, to local authorities that they should be willing to meet the internal drainage boards so far as possible even though this is not enforceable by Statute.

Mr. Jeger: I am glad to give my support to the new Clause, which, I hope, the Minister will accept. We began this afternoon with general agreement on a new Clause proposed by a back bencher on the Government side which was received by the Minister with approval and was passed with the approval of hon. Members. I hope that the present new Clause will receive the same treatment.
In support of the Clause, I should like to quote the essence of an appeal that was made to me by the Goole branch of the National Farmers' Union as long ago


as September, 1956. The fact that it was put forward to me in 1956 does not detract from its relevance today. It is merely the behaviour of the Government over the last nine or ten years that has prevented the matter being considered until now and has held the appeal in abeyance since 1956.
The question to which the Goole branch of the N.F.U. referred is dealt with by the new Clause. The branch pointed to the fact that 7,000 or 8,000 acres of good farm land in an area known as Goole Fields are regularly subjected to flooding, the flood water coming from peat moorland. On peat moorland, apparently, no rates are levied and nobody accepts responsibility. Under the new Clause, however, a definite responsibility would be placed upon the owners of the peat moorland who would be developing it and, consequently, responsible for any flood water flowing from the peat moors on to the agricultural land.
I note that the new Clause says that "development"
means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining, drainage or other operations
and that, of course, would include the collection of peat from the peat moors. In this letter of 5th September, 1956, I am advised that hundreds of acres of corn and potatoes are flooded regularly owing to the vast amount of water which comes off the moors through every drainage area and for which no drainage rates can be levied at present. I therefore commend this new Clause to the Minister in the hope that he will accept it and so help to preserve the 7,000 or 8,000 acres of good agricultural land, producing corn and potatoes particularly, in Goole Fields.
There is another reference in this letter to industrial water being pumped into the drainage system and leaving sediment which blocks up the system. That is not covered, I think, directly by the new Clause. It is a by-product of industrial or town water which not merely floods an area but leaves sediment behind. It is a burden on the internal drainage board to clear the sediment to allow the free passage of water.

Mr. Vane: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), who moved this new Clause, and other

hon. Gentlemen who have spoken since have pointed to some of the difficulties and complications which arise in land drainage. I am not sure whether the peat to which the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) has just referred will not find itself eligible for some small drainage charge when this Bill becomes law, but he did give as an illustration a rather unusual case. The more usual cases about which representations are made are those which were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone.
This problem is not confined to particular parts of the country. It is found in a number of places to a greater or lesser extent, and I think that we ought to bear in mind at the outset that it is not just a problem affecting agricultural land, which, I think, is the land with which the Clause is concerned. It is a drainage problem generally. It is of concern to people in agriculture who from time to time make the sort of representations which the hon. Gentleman has just told us about; but it really is a much wider problem than one affecting agricultural land only.
I think we ought to accept, too, that it is a problem which is inherent in a great deal of development and that it is really one which belongs more to planning than, strictly, to land drainage, with which we are dealing here today. It is a much broader problem than one just of water affecting agricultural land.
The new Clause would give the owner or occupier of agricultural land or of other land affected, as I read it, the right to recover damages, as it were, without proof of negligence, after application to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that that is a radical change in the law and would be a difficult one to make in the narrow context of a Land Drainage Bill, and is the sort of change which by our conventions is usually first considered by the Law Reform Committee. It is really a wider subject than, perhaps, we thought at first reading.
I do not want to be over-critical because I admit that there is a problem here, but we are not only speaking generally but also considering a specific proposal which, it is suggested, should be embodied in this Bill. It puts an


obligation on the Agricultural Land Tribunal to deal with applications under this new Clause. I hope that hon. Members will agree with me that the Tribunal would find it a very heavy burden indeed to shoulder the task which my hon. Friend proposes here without any criteria to guide it. This is a big inroad into our common law, and I do not think that the suggestion is really the right procedure.
When we consider the present situation I do not think that we should be so disheartened. The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, already helps to meet this problem. I am not suggesting that any of the existing Statutes meet it in toto, but none the less they make a contribution. Private development is covered by Section 37 of the Public Health Act, which provides that before local authorities approve building plans they must be satisfied that adequate provisions are made for drainage.
Here I may draw attention to the fact that one of the prime purposes of the Bill is to increase funds to river boards so that they will be able to take over greater lengths of main river—intermediate watercourses, as we call them—and also they will for the first time be concerned with farm ditches. I think that my hon. Friend in referring to an Act of Parliament really meant this Bill. So after this Bill becomes law we shall find that river boards will be in a much stronger position than they were before, not only with more funds but with the duty of dealing with watercourses, which, in the main, we are considering.
When it comes to the question of contributions under this permissive power—and I admit that the power is permissive—we find that new towns and other local authorities have in the main contributed adequately and generously to this problem. We are more concerned, perhaps, with smaller cases, but there is no reason to suppose that in major development there has been any mean or unco-operative attitude, and I believe that consultation and co-operation between the authorities concerned has been good. I have also got the same piece of paper as the hon. Member opposite, and I have read it. It is from the National Farmers'

Union. I see that the hon. Member for Goole wants to quote it.

Mr. Norman Cole: Would my hon. Friend consider sending some kind of circular letter addressed to the appropriate local authorities pointing out that, although there is no statutory obligation, at least some kind of moral obligation exists?

Mr. Vane: I was coming to that. I had not much more to say, but I was coming to that.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is very conscious of this problem. We hope that after the passage of this Bill it will be definitely lessened; that in many cases it will be met. There should not be great difficulty in the matter of highways because under the Highways Act, 1959, highway authorities are empowered to undertake work for the drainage of highways and provides that owners and occupiers of adjacent land shall not suffer damage. That Act has hardly had time yet for its full effect to work out. There should be an improvement in this field. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government is conscious of the problem and it has reminded planning authorities, I believe many times, about it, and it would be our intention to ask that Ministry to do so again, because this is a step where we want circulars not put in the waste-paper basket but pinned up on the board, because it is a problem.
8.15 p.m.
On the other hand, I think that we should accept that this is a problem where probably we can do more good administratively than we can by trying to legislate. We have a number of different Acts of Parliament bearing on the problem which is basically and over-ridingly a planning issue. We are now dealing with a new Bill on the subject and we hope that it will help. We hope that after the passage of the Bill we can do what my hon. Friend suggested and see that further circulars are sent out and that consultation at all levels is encouraged. I have no doubt that we shall thus see a considerable improvement.
The document from which the hon. Gentleman was going to quote to me says at the end that it would be hoped to see legislation. None the less, it also


says that we do not merely want exhortative circulars from Whitehall to local housing and highway authorities although, naturally, any such purely administrative action would be welcome. I think that administrative action, if it is properly planned and properly carried out, would have more effect than, perhaps, hon. Members give it credit for.
Therefore, I hope that, hon. Members will see that various steps have been taken and are being taken to meet the problem, which is basically a planning problem, and that the Clause deals with only one facet of it and does not really set up the machinery necessary. In all these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he can withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Peart: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given the reply which I thought he would give. He has obviously had discussions with the National Farmers' Union and no doubt its points of view, expressed in the document which has been circularised to all hon. Members, have been considered.
I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is partly a planning problem, but the Bill, although it seeks to improve existing legislation and brings about certain improvements, does not go quite far enough. That is why the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) and others would support what is virtually the National Farmers' Union's case for seeking to improve the legislation. They feel that what has been proposed already does not go far enough. In other words, they are repeating the argument we put forward in Committee and also on Second Reading, that we need an even more major Measure to deal with the problems of flooding.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), who illustrated his own case, would agree with me that we accept what was stated in the Heneage Report and what was said by the technical panel, which has not been mentioned in our debates.
Here we come to the question of protection against floods and conservation. It is a very urgent problem. It has to be tackled. The question of water runoff has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings),

who described the problem in his constituency and the problem of Letchworth Council and the local land drainage board. I accept that this must be considered from the wider planning point of view, but I cannot see this Government doing it. That is the dilemma in which hon. Members are.
The recent Report by the Advisory Council dealing with the conservation of natural resources indicates that there is a need for a much more comprehensive appraisal of a wider problem which affects land drainage and, indeed, all the matters which have been dealt with here today. I would accept that here we get involved, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, in planning. However, I believe that hon. Members who have spoken from the point of view of their constituency experiences have presented a very formidable case.
I am sorry that I did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Maid-stone, who moved the Amendment, but I know the case in the sense that I have read the brief presented by the National Farmers' Union. I have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who also quoted experience in his own constituency, and we have had stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) the problem of overspill and the decanting of water, and the serious problems which that creates and how we must create machinery to deal with them.
I think that we have made out a strong case for action, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. We have been given the practical example of development. Although there are good relations between the council and the drainage board, and although the council concerned, which is developing, has agreed to build a balancing reservoir, there will still be a need for much more capital work to be done, and the problem will, no doubt, still be there. Inevitably, this problem will have to be faced in many areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole pinpointed the problem with his example. He quoted a letter from his own branch of the National Farmers' Union from as far back as 1956. As he said, it still holds today. He was then


urging the Government to act on the Heneage Report—and even before 1956. Indeed, his branch of the N.F.U., realising that he was active in this matter, briefed him in the sense of supplying information.
The example was given of the 7,000–8,000 acres in what I think my hon. Friend called Goole Fields, where flooding comes from a peat moorland and where there is no liability and no responsibility on the part of anybody and no rates are paid, and, in the end, it is the farming community which suffers. My hon. Friend assures me that the situation is still the same. There in that part of Yorkshire we have the problem of flooding from peat moorland, a problem which was considered by the Technical Panel of the Heneage Committee.
Thus, we have a real problem here, and we have to ask ourselves what action we should take. It is true that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that we are in the realm of planning. However, the National Farmers' Union, which is concerned about this, has presented a careful brief. Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary has read it, because he replied to it. I will not weary the House with details of the brief, but, having read it carefully, I think that it makes a case.
Today, the Government have put up their usual arguments, including the argument that Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, enables the problem to be considered, but that substantial development by local authorities in unlikely to cause serious difficulties, and that this Measure will provide safeguards. Again, we had the argument mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary—it was stressed by the National Farmers' Union as an argument which the Government would use—that we have Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and that this will enable local authorities to satisfy themselves that satisfactory provision will be made for the drainage of new buildings.
We also had the other argument that under common law it is open to anyone suffering injury through increased runoff from any development to bring in an action for damages. How can the

farmers in Goole bring a case for damages to peat land? It would be extremely difficult. The small farmers affected are not people who wish to go in for litigation. Their incomes have been decreased enough already through Government policies over the last ten years, and they would not like to seek to remedy a wrong under common law.
There may well be a good case for accepting the new Clause. It has strong farmer support, and it has been strongly supported today. I have sympathy with it. Generally, whether rightly or wrongly, when there is an issue in which one of the parties is a body connected with agriculture I must admit that I support the farming community. If there can be a bias, I have always tended that way. Hon. Members who have put forward the Clause, and others who have supported it, have, I think, made their case. I do not know whether they will press it, but there is sympathy for it on this side of the House.

Mr. J. Wells: In view of the explanation given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that this is substantially a matter of planning, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but in doing so I would ask him whether, in future, if we put Questions to the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the run-off of flood water we shall be told that it is really a matter for agriculture and nothing to do with planning.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Is it the wish of the House that the Motion and Clause be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Snow (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that when you collected the voices not a single hon. Member opposite called "No". I wonder on what grounds the Division has been called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I heard an hon. Member on the Government Front Bench call "No", and I accepted that as "No".

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[8.25 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyto, William
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Short, Edward


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Collick, Percy
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Stonehouse, John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Delargy, Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, George


Dempsey, James
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Watkins, Tudor


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (walsall, N.)


Grey, Charles
Mort, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Houghton, Douglas
Prentice, R. E.



Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Lawson and Mr. Ifor Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leavey, J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Allason, James
Finlay, Graeme
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Loveys, Walter H.


Batsford, Brian
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Gower, Raymond
MacArthur, Ian


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Green, Alan
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N. Ayrs.)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gresham Cooke, R.
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin


Box, Donald
Gurden, Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Douglas


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, H. P. G.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chataway, Christopher
Hendry, Forbes
Morgan, William


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Michael


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hobson, John
Nugent, Sir Richard


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holland, Philip
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle


Costain, A. P.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Coulson, J. M.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Partridge, E.


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jackson, John
Pitman, I. J.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pott, Percivall


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis


Duncan, Sir James
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Duthie, Sir William
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Hugh

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 149.

Renton, David
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Walker, Peter


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, William


Roots, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Teeling, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M,
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shaw, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wise, A. R.


Shepherd, William
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John


Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Worsley, Marcus


Smithers, Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan



Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Mr. Frank Pearson and


Studholme, Sir Henry
Walder, David
Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Clause 2.—(AMOUNT OF GENERAL DRAINAGE CHARGE.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to "under" and to insert:
precepts are issued in that year by the rivet board".This Amendment is on a plane quite different from that of the two new Clauses which we have been discussing. This is nothing more than a consequential Amendment in order to clarify a small Amendment made in Standing Committee.
Hon. Members on that Committee will remember that in order to secure equivalency between the precept rate and the new drainage charges, we originally arranged to compare the precept for one year with the drainage charge for the succeeding year. In fact, the precept and the rating years both end at the same time of year, and we thought that we should have that staggering, as it were, to ensure that the arrangements were practicable.
We have since been assured by the River Boards' Association that it feels that to be unnecessary and that it would rather operate this equivalency between the drainage charge and the precept rate of the same year. Hence we have put down this Amendment in order to put it beyond doubt that the words in the Clause mean what I have explained. This is simply a question of a tense, and I hope that hon. Members will realise that that is all that we are trying to effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(DESIGNATION OF WATERCOURSES FOR DRAINAGE WORKS IN THE INTERESTS OF AGRICULTURE.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after "that", to insert:
there is a special need for additional drainage work in".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be convenient with this to take the Amendment in page 2, line 20, leave out "require" and insert "requiring".

Mr. Willey: I think that they go together.
We are now returning to a subject raised in Standing Committee. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), in moving an Amendment, gave by way of illustration a dramatic case of run-off, but that was a matter which we were discussing earlier. The issue between us now is that of implementing the agreement upon which the Government based the Bill. Paragraph 2 of the Appendix to the White Paper, which gives the Text of the Agreed Principles, says:
When a River Board considers that there is a special agricultural need, it may put forward to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food proposals for a special charge on agricultural land outside internal drainage districts.
We are again trying to persuade the Government to write these words into the Bill. I still cannot see why the Government have not been able to accede to what seems a reasonable and necessary request. I shall be frank and repeat what I said in Standing Committee, which was:
I agree that there is no sanction to enforce this, because it depends upon what appears to the river boards, but the river boards will conscientiously carry out their duty, and it is for the Government to put them into a position where they can conscientiously carry out their duty by writing in here the terms of the agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th December, 1960; c.152.]
I concede that we are not providing anything which would impose a sanction. We are trying to be fair to the boards and to see that they are called on to do what it was understood they were called upon to do by the agreement itself.
When we discussed this in Standing Committee there was support from both


sides of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that this surely was not a point which the draftsmen would have difficulty in meeting. He shared out view that this was a point which might well be met. He was dealing with an Amendment which we are not discussing now, but I am sure that he still shares our view that this is something which could well be met by the Government and that, in fact, there are no draftsmanship difficulties about accepting it.
The right hon. Member, who was supported by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), expressed himself more dogmatically than I would. The right hon. Member went on to say later, in reply to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary:
He says that we are not fighting about a big thing, but we are. We are fighting for a Parliamentary principle—the principle that the Act should follow the White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th December, 1960; c.157.]
I should have thought that on this matter the Government have had time to reconsider the position. I would not suggest for a moment that the Government gave any undertaking that they would do more than reconsider it. We are now asking them what reconsideration they have given to it and why they have not been able to accept the proposal we made to make it quite clear that they patently accept the agreement upon which the Bill was based.
For these reasons, I hope that the Government will be able to assure us, either that they are willing to accept these Amendments or, alternatively, that there are special technical difficulties which prevent them from following a course which otherwise, I am sure they ought to take. I put forward these Amendments hoping that the Government will either accept them or convince us that they are not Amendments which could be accepted because of difficulties of draftsmanship.

8.45 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If I may say so, the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is a little specious. If he really wants to implement the terms of the second paragraph of the text of the agreed principles in the White Paper, he could not have

found a much worse way of doing it than this. The moment he changes the emphasis from agricultural needs to needs of drainage he at once runs contrary to the agreement which was agreed by all the negotiating bodies.
It took a very considerable time to reach that agreement. If we were to accept the Amendment in which he puts the needs for drainage above agricultural needs, inevitably we should be playing straight into the hands of those river boards—I think they are very few, but, nevertheless, there are some—which will be anxious to do everything possible for purely drainage reasons without much regard for agriculture. I do not want to argue the case one way or the other for the moment, but I want to stress as strongly as possible to the Minister that the wording of Clause 3 as he has it is far more nearly a full implementation of the second paragraph of the text of the agreed principles than this Amendment would be. For that reason, I hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: For once I must disagree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). What the Amendment is actually doing is putting into the Bill, rightly or wrongly, the words of paragraph 20 of the White Paper, which reads:
Where there is a special need for additional drainage work in the interests of agriculture, the river board would be empowered to put forward…
It may be that my right hon. Friend's predecessor put into the White Paper wording which could not be implemented in an Act of Parliament. I see the difficulty which has always faced my right hon. Friend, but I think it a very dangerous principle for this House to embark upon to have consultations with all interested parties on legislation, to agree with them what legislation they think will be agreeable to all the parties and to publish a White Paper laying down what that legislation is to be, and, later, to introduce fresh proposals in statutory form and put them before Parliament.
Quite clearly, there is a great deal of difference between what is in the interests of agriculture and what additional drainage work is in the interests of agriculture. In other words, as drafted, this Clause


could be used by the river boards to impose a levy upon agriculturists for work that is now being carried out by the boards without the special levy.
When we debated this in Standing Committee I thought that my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary had admitted that there was force in this argument and that the matter would be put right before we reached this present stage. Because of the undertaking that we then received the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) withdrew his Amendment. We are now faced with the fact that, after all this interval, no attempt has been made to bring this Clause into line with the White Paper.
I realise my right hon. Friend's difficulties. It is always difficult for a Minister to inherit a Bill and all that goes with it from someone else, because he has to do what he thinks is right. It may be that my right hon. Friend thinks this Clause, as drafted, is the right Clause, but he cannot think that, as drafted, it fulfils the agreement that his right hon. Friend made with the interests concerned. They only agreed to a special drainage charge for additional work, and this Clause does not cover that. I therefore beg my right hon. Friend to make clear in his reply why he is departing from what has been the normal practice in Parliament, that a Bill follows the pledges given by preceding Ministers in its conformity with the White Paper.

Mr. Soames: I fully appreciate the force of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We fully appreciated it in Committee when, as my right hon. Friend said, this subject was discussed at length and when we said that we would like to see whether it was possible to bring in some new form of words that would meet the point.
I assure my right hon. Friend that this has nothing to do with the fact that one Minister inherits a Bill from another. It springs much more from the fact that a White Paper is not drafted by Parliamentary counsel. A White Paper is not necessarily drafted in the language appropriate to a Bill. A White Paper is drafted to show people what one is trying to arrive at. It is possible in a White Paper to use all sorts of words to give

that impression but words that are not suitable for incorporation in a Clause.
We have two very good examples of that—and they have given rise to this most understandable Amendment—in the words "additional" and "special needs". Those are the words that are very difficult to put into the Bill, as I shall try to explain.
Let us deal, first, with the word "additional". This special charge will be raised, and will continue to be raised for something that is specifically for agriculture—extra drainage works. That is the intention laid down in the White Paper. I agree that the word "additional" is not in the Bill, but that is because the work would no longer be additional once the money had been spent on it. It then ceases to be additional. One has to ask to what is the work "additional" and how long does it continue to be additional?
Again, what is the difference between need and special need? How can one prove that it is a special need of agriculture to have a certain thing? This charge is for a drainage scheme of specific importance and interest to agriculture in a certain area. This is what the Bill is designed to do.
Paragraph 20 of the White Paper says:
Where there is a special need for additional drainage work in the interests of agriculture…
and Clause 3 says:
Where it appears to a river board that the interests of agriculture in the river board area or any part of it require the carrying out of drainage works….
I agree that it would have brought the matter much more in line with the White Paper to have added the words "additional" and "special needs", but that is something that the river board has to determine in any case, because the Clause says:
Where it appears to a river board…
We have to be very careful when legislating not to write in words that those whose job it will be to carry out the law find impossible to interpret. I assure the House that to add the word "additional" here would raise all sorts of complications. As I have said, it is very hard to know to what the work is additional and when it ceases to be additional, and whether one can go on maintaining a scheme after it has been


done and is therefore no longer additional.
There has also been a lot of difficulty in the past in trying to define "special needs." As the hon. Gentleman knows, we had this out in Committee, and I assure him that it is the intention of the Government—and these schemes must come to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that this is money raised from agriculture for the benefit of better agricultural drainage. If I could have been more precise I would have been, but I do not believe that it would have been in the interests of the enactment if we had changed the wording.

Mr. Jeger: Does the Minister realise that for every person who reads the Bill there must be twenty who read the White Paper? Therefore, those who read the White Paper and not the Bill will be misled by the words
Special need for additional drainage work
into thinking that there will be special work to cater for a special need. By the wording of the White Paper the Minister, or his predecessor, perhaps unintentionally, has been responsible for misleading many people in the agricultural world. I hope, therefore, that in another place he will go some way to meet the point of view put forward by his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Mr. Symonds: I am surprised that the Minister has not accepted the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). In my constituency the river board is responsible for a certain section of the river which is rapidly silting up. The use of a large amount of agricultural land is being denied to the farmers. All that we are submitting is that the river board shall submit proposals to the Minister for dealing with cases such as that.
Clause 3 (1) says:
Where it appears to a river board
and so on. It may never appear to a river board. The Clause also says "the river board may" and so on. Having been a public representative for many years, I know what those words mean, particularly when they are interpreted by those who do not want to do anything. If a Statute says "it appears to them" or they "may do something",

they discuss for hours on end how the position appears to them and eventually they decide that they may do something.

Mr. Soames: The Amendment does not affect the words:
Where it appears to a river board".
The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the point raised by the Amendment. The words in Clause 3 (1) would stand even if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Symonds: That might be the opinion of the Minister, but I have not been called to order by the Chair. I appreciate what the Minister has said, but I do not retract anything that I have said about my interpretation of the words in the Amendment and in the Clause.
I ask the Minister to take note of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that it shall be the responsibility of the river board to carry out a survey.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member. We are debating the Amendment in page 2 line 19, after "that" to insert:
there is a special need for additional drainage work in".

Mr. Symonds: I was under the impression that we were discussing with that Amendment the Amendment in page 2, line 19, at the beginning to insert:
(1) Every river board shall carry out a survey of the watercourses in the river board area not later than such date as may be appointed by the Minister for the purposes of this provision.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. We are discussing the Amendment in line 19 and that in line 20. The Amendment to which the hon. Member referred has not been selected.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Symonds: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought from the expressions used by hon. Members and by the Minister himself that that Amendment was under discussion.
Nevertheless, I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that in my constituency the hematite ore works are doing a lot of work and many of the drains in that area are being closed up. Here is a of special


need. From whom is the authority to come? The words contained in the subsection are:
Where…in the river board area or any part of it…may submit to the Minister…
Here is a case in point where that might be done. I am of the opinion that the Minister should accept the words proposed by my hon. Friend:
where there is a special need".
In this case there is a special need, and I think that the Minister should accept the Amendment.

Dr. Stross: We had discussions about this question during the Committee stage and I shall not speak at any length now. I was influenced by the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, including that of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). He was worried because there was a departure from the principles set out in the White Paper, and he thought that it was a bad thing for Parliament to move away from the set phrases used in the White Paper.
Tonight the Minister has given us his explanation that the White Paper is really for the public at large and that the words in it are not necessarily suitable to put in the Bill. If that is the case, I would be influenced by what he said. None the less, I hope that he will say a few more words to explain the further criticism made by a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. He said, "Look at subsection (10). How can you explain that without putting in these other words which we are now debating?" I should like to follow that argument and accept what he said, that words in a White Paper are not necessarily completely binding when we are framing a Bill. But in the past we have tended to feel that they are.

Mr. Soames: In order to clear up what has been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), may I say that perhaps I did not explain this very well. I do not believe that what has happened as a result of this Bill is different from what is written in the White Paper. I said that, from the point of view of a Parliamentary draftsman, there are certain words which cannot be used

in a Bill because they would leave the matter open to doubt. Subsection (10) means that a Minister shall not confirm a scheme under that section unless he is satisfied. That is the safeguard. It is the intention of the Government—it is wanted by hon. Members opposite as much as we want it—that this shall be a special charge for special work for agriculture and work additional to what has been done. The money is raised for a special purpose and no Minister would give permission for such a scheme unless it was additional work and a special need for agriculture.
I see the point made by the hon. Members and by my right hon. Friend. It has been made forcibly both here and in Committee. It would have been nice to have it cut and dried, but there are certain words which may be used in a White Paper which cannot be put into a Bill, and these are two of them. I do not think there is any difference between us in our aims.

Mr. Willey: I am disappointed. The Government had advance warning that we should be disappointed. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), when withdrawing the Amendment, admitted that the Government had not given a hard and fast promise. I made that equally clear. My hon. Friend went on to say that if what the Parliamentary Secretary produced
was not satisfactory we shall have something to say about it on Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th Dec, 1960, c.163.]
I apologise for speaking with such brevity. I should have spoken at greater length. I did not wish to do so because, as the Minister said, the matter was discussed in Standing Committee. I wish to reconcile the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) with his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The hon. Member was assuming that we were moving words out of the Clause. In fact, this is an addition to the wording of the Clause. I do not share his interpretation of the effect of this Amendment, but, of course, if there was any doubt on the score it would have been for the Government to make their own proposals.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are taking the opportunity now to raise the matter again and to make


sure that the Government give an explanation; and for this reason we stand by the words we used in Committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I was under no misapprehension. I realise that the hon. Member is not trying to leave out words. Any difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and myself over this Clause is because we were entirely at one over Clauses 1 and 2, and this is a separate issue on Clause 3.

Mr. Willey: I regret that my efforts as a conciliator were not as effective as they might have been.
This is regarded as a matter of some importance. The Minister will remember that in the Standing Committee we considered the views of the National Farmers' Union. I do not wish to give the reasons which the Union deployed for supporting this Amendment, but apparently it regarded it as an Amendment of some significance. This is my difficulty in replying to the Minister. He says that these words do not help very much. To give an illustration, "special" does not get us any further. But, whether we amend the Clause or not, the word "special" appears in it. This Clause refers to a "special drainage charge", so that in that connotation "special" apparently has some meaning.
I wish to emphasise the point which is implicit in what was said by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The Minister is taking over the responsibilities of his predecessor, and is saying that the wording in the White Paper does not help us at all. All that we have done is to try to work by the words used by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman may be right, although I do not share his view, that the words are redundant and unhelpful. But here they are as the view of the former Minister of an effective agreement. It is not unimportant that we should try to make clear that we are carrying out the agreement.
It is important that we should write into this legislation exactly what should appear to the boards. This is an opportunity of doing so and I defy any draftsman to say that it is not possible to do it. If we were providing for a more specific obligation, we might be persuaded

by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible to do it, from a draftsman's point of view, but I remain unconvinced that we should not properly define what should appear to the boards.
At present, this matter is not properly defined, and the National Farmers' Union, rightly, can have doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We have the White Paper and the provision with regard to the Minister, and for that reason there should not be any doubt". I have doubts and it is wrong for us, as legislators, to be bound by advice, properly tendered, but on grounds that are technically too narrow. This is a matter of great importance and it should be clear that the Government have done everything possible to ensure that the purposes expressed in the White Paper are incorporated in the Bill.
Unless the Minister can give an assurance that he will again look at this matter between now and it reaching another place—and I would also like him to consult all the interested parties who have doubts—we must tell him that he has not made a reasonable reply to the plea we made in Standing Committee, and divide the House.

Mr. Jeger: I must remind the Minister that when we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he intended to consider the whole subject in the light of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) saying:
…I do not desire to move the Amendment at this stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th December, 1960; c.163.]
My hon. Friend made that statement on the understanding that the Minister would give further consideration to the subject we are now discussing.

Mr. Soames: The House will be aware of the statement made in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary:
But I hope that it is appreciated that, bearing in mind the trouble taken over the drafting of the Clause, I cannot give an assurance that we shall follow such words, or even nearly such words."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 8th December, 1960, c.163.]
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asks me to look at the matter again, between now and it reaching another place. It would be dishonest of


me to suggest that I will do so, because I have looked at it and, in my view, I cannot improve on it. All the intention is included in the Clause as it now stands and, of course, the sanction of the Minister is included. The Clause reads:
Where it appears to a river board that the interests of agriculture in the river board area or any part of it require the carrying out of drainage works…".
Considerable study has been made of this issue and, as I say, it would not be

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, E. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robertson, J. (Paisley)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blyton, William
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kelley, Richard
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Logan, David
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Sylvester, George


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Symonds, J. B.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Diamond, John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Wade, Donald


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
Wainwright, Edwin


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward J.
Whitlock, William


George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grey, Charles
Moyle, Arthur
Willey, Frederick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Hannan, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Parker, John
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hilton, A. V.
Peart, Frederick
Woof, Robert


Holman, Percy
Pentland, Norman



Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Short and Dr. Broughton


Hoy, James H.
Proctor, W. T.





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cunningham, Knox
Hastings, Stephen


Aitken, W. T.
Curran, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allason, James
Currie, G. B. H.
Hendry, Forbes


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hirst, Geoffrey


Atkins, Humphrey
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hobson, John


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, W. F.
Holland, Philip


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Drayson, G. B.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
du Cann, Edward
Hughes-Young, Michael


Berkeley, Humphry
Duncan, Sir James
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bishop, F. P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Iremonger, T. L.


Box, Donald
Errington, Sir Eric
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Jackson, John


Braine, Bernard
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Buck, Antony
Gibson-Watt, David
Jennings, J. C.


Bullard, Denys
Glover, Sir Douglas
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Gower, Raymond
Kerans, Cdr. J, S.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Channon, H. P. G.
Green, Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Chataway, Christopher
Gresham Cooke, R.
Leavey, J. A.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Grimston, Sir Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K,
Gurden, Harold
Lilley, F. J. P.


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Coulson, J. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Crowder, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert

honest of me to suggest that I could look at it again. I feel sure that, as drafted, the Clause meets the wishes of all the interests concerned, including agriculture, and I hope that the Amendment will now be withdrawn.

Question put, That these words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 150.

Loveys, Walter H.
Partridge, E.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, William


MacArthur, Ian
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Temple, John M.


McLaren, Martin
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Pott, Percivall
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Prior, J. M. L.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maddan, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Pym, Francis
Vickers, Miss Joan


Marshall, Douglas
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Hugh
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, David
Walder, David


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William
Walker, Peter


Mills, Stratton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wells, John (Maldstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shaw, M.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Morgan, William
Shepherd, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Michael
Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)
Wise, A. R.


Nugent, Sir Richard
Smithers, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Woollam, John


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Worsley, Marcus


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Studholme, Sir Henry



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tapsell, Peter
Colonel J. H. Harrison and Mr. Whitelaw.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where such schemes embrace land already subject to schemes made under section fifty-two of the Act of 1930 the river board shall relieve the owners and occupiers concerned either of the obligation to pay the expenses arising under the said section fifty-two or of the special charge arising under subsection (1) of this section, and in the case of land subject to schemes made under section twenty-seven of this Act which is subsequently brought into schemes under this section the owners and occupiers concerned shall only be called upon to pay either the expenses arising under section twenty-seven or the special charge but not both.
It will be recalled that in Committee I attempted to move a slightly differently drafted Amendment to deal with the same matter. The easiest way for me to summarise what it is all about is to ask hon. Members to look at paragraphs 37 to 39 of the White Paper, Cmd. 916. That shows the reason why, in Clause 27 of the Bill, we are repealing what used to be known as Section 52 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Under that Section, certain schemes of a small nature were carried out under the auspices of county councils or county borough councils, which executed drainage improvements in small areas where the setting up of a drainage district was unsuitable and which recovered the cost from the owner of the land that was to be improved.
What I attempted to do in Committee was to try to make it impossible for areas which had been covered by schemes of that kind to be incorporated in a special scheme under Part III of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), however,

raised some valid points against that proposition, not least on the ground that all the schemes that have been carried out under Section 52 of the 1930 Act and which would be carried out under Clause 27 of the Bill should be preserved if special drainage schemes were to be introduced into an area.
It is to try to meet that valid point that I have redrafted the Amendment. It has not been easy. The difficulty is that we are dealing with land which was covered by some schemes under Section 52 of the 1930 Act and in respect of which there may be only small expenses continuing as a result of the work done, and we are also having to deal with new schemes which will be carried out under Clause 27 of the Bill. Nobody knows how much they will cost, but, as is made clear in the White Paper and in the Bill, the cost can be considerably more than the cost was allowed to be under the old Section 52 schemes, for which there was a limit of £2 an acre and £5,000 in all. We are raising the figure considerably to £20 an acre, with no top limit. Therefore, there may be a considerable difference in incidence as between the old schemes which have been carried out, and on which maintenance is continuing and expenditure is arising every year, and the new schemes under Clause 27. It was for that reason that I had to draft something which would cover both, and the wording is a little different when it refers to the past from what it is when it refers to the future.
There is one enormous difficulty. I fully admit it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pick me up on this. It


is that the new special agricultural charge under Clause 3 will fall upon occupiers. The charge under Section 50 schemes—and I think it will also be the case under Clause 27 schemes—is paid for by the owners concerned. I fully appreciate that that is a difficulty. It is extraordinarily difficult to see how to overcome it.
I must confess I fell into a trap, quite unwittingly, in drafting the Amendment, in that my eye fell upon the fact that Clause 27 (6) refers to the owners and occupiers of land being notified of a scheme made under that Clause, but that I overlooked the fact that later in the same Clause we place the charge on owners only, not on the occupiers. That is how the accident happened.
I am, therefore, quite prepared to believe that the wording of the Amendment is faulty and will have to be rectified, but what I hope I can establish in my right hon. Friend's mind is the need for somehow or another ensuring that where schemes are carried out, particularly the new ones under Clause 27, the owners of land will not find themselves in the unfortunate position, where they are also the occupiers of the land, of having to pay both continuing expenses under Clause 17 schemes and the new special agricultural charge under Clause 3. It would be very unfair if both charges fell upon them when, and despite the fact that, a little island of land was dealt with under Clause 27 schemes, it became part of a much bigger scheme.
9.30 p.m.
I would hope that, even if the expenses which continue from the old Section 52 schemes under the 1930 Act are considered to be too trivial to bother about, my right hon. Friend will nevertheless consider very seriously doing something to meet the difficulty of owners who are also occupiers under new schemes on land which later becomes part of an area which will be dealt with by schemes under Clause 3. The charge there can be quite heavy, and the continuing expense of maintaining may be quite considerable and, indeed, may even outweigh the expense of the special agricultural drainage charge under Clause 3.
Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that I am endeavouring to do something which in principle was

not wildly opposed in Committee, which is an attempt at equity, and which is a definite attempt at avoiding gross injustice happening to people who have tried to improve their land or have agreed to others helping them to do it.

Mr. Soames: I take the point my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is after. There are three things I would say to him. Of course, what he is after is that the owner of a comparatively small area of land covering perhaps tens of acres or hundreds of acres, which is subjected to some little scheme undertaken between the owner and perhaps half a dozen or so other owners of adjoining land on their own, should not be involved in a big scheme covering thousands of acres, with special drainage charges, and covering the whole basin of a river.
The first thing I would say to him is that it depends which way it happens. If the special scheme covering many thousands of acres is in operation and is being maintained, and the occupiers of the land affected are already subscribing to it, but nevertheless wish to carry out their own scheme on top of that, it is up to them. It is up to them to do it of they wish to. The occupiers of the land and the owners themselves would be contributing to the special scheme; and they decide to do something on their own. It is a question of the extent of the interest.
The special charge is of interest generally to agriculture. Under Clause 27, schemes are of direct interest to a comparatively small number of people whose lands are side by side along a river bank. If there is a special scheme in existence and they wish to have a scheme of their own under Clause 27, that is all right. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that it is up to them. If they have done a scheme of their own under Clause 27, and then a special scheme is put forward in the area in which they are, what my hon. Friend is after is that the same people should not pay twice.
My right hon. Friend himself said that since putting down his Amendment he has appreciated that a special scheme is paid for, the special charges arise on the occupier, whereas Clause 27 schemes would be paid for by the owners of the land. So, in fact, the same people are


not paying twice. My hon. and gallant Friend realised that but he nevertheless asked whether there was any way in which this situation could be met.
It could not be met by an Amendment such as this one, but under the Bill as it now stands any special scheme has to go to the Minister. The scheme may be one such as I have suggested, covering a large area, perhaps fifty miles long. It may be a special scheme covering all the watersheds leading into the basin. It would be perfectly possible for the Minister to say that within that scheme there should be an "island" which should be excluded because a large piece of work had already been done there under Clause 27, a scheme which would be known to the river board and to the Department. That would then be excluded so that there would be an "island" within the special charge area.
On the other hand, the river board might put up a case saying that, although there has been a small scheme under Clause 27, a bigger scheme will give those concerned still greater advantage and, therefore, they should be included. I do not think it would be right to write into the Bill that if one has a Clause 27 scheme one should not contribute to a special charge scheme. It might be that benefit would still be derived from the special charge scheme, and, if that were so, it would be right that some financial contribution should be made towards it.
On the other hand, if there has been a Clause 27 scheme and it would appear that no extra benefit would be derived from a scheme covering a largish area by the small area which has already been dealt with by the owners on their own initiative, it would be up to the Minister, if he so chose, to lay down that the "island" of land should not fall within the special charge scheme and to give permission for the special charge scheme to go ahead without the small bit of land being included. That is a safeguard.
In the light of those points, I think that what we propose is the best way to cover what my hon. Friend is aiming at without bringing in too many complications which might redound against the interests which we are trying to safeguard.

Mr. Fletcher: I did not have the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I have listened very carefully to some of the discussions on Report and, in particular, to the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I did not think his speech was a masterpiece of lucidity, but, at any rate, I think I understood the point that he was trying to make. Having listened to the Minister, I feel bound to say that I do not think he has satisfactorily answered the points made by his hon. Friend.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is on a fair point here. There are a number of people who have made contributions under Section 27 of the earlier Act, and they have done so because they thought it was partly in their own interests and partly of advantage to the land of which they were occupiers.
The Minister sought to draw a distinction between the liability of occupiers and the liability of owners. He said that he had three observations to make. The first thing he said was that it depended which way it happened. One appreciates that in this relatively small class of case those who have in the past contributed to a scheme of a particular local nature have done so because they were occupiers. One appreciates that the obligation under the Clause we are now discussing will fall primarily upon the owners, but I ask the Minister what about those people who are both owners and occupiers? I imagine that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely is concerned with the owner-occupier.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I said so.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member said so. Surely, he will be penalised if he has to make a double contribution—if he has to contribute to a scheme under the provisions of the 1930 Act and also to any scheme which may be made under Clause 3 of this Bill. Therefore, it does not seem to me that it is anything like satisfactory for a Minister to draw distinction between the liabilities of occupiers and owners. That does not deal with the point that a great many of the people to whom this applies are both owners and occupiers.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman, and I ask myself this question. If people in their own neighbourhood, in an area where some scheme has


been necessary in the past, have combined together, have undertaken this work, have incurred expense and have paid for it, and have, to that extent, contributed to the drainage operations of the locality in which they live, why should they now find that, because of obligations that are imposed generally under this Measure and in a wider sphere, they should be penalised? Why should they have a double liability?
It has been said that these people may form a kind of pocket or island in a larger area. I should have thought that if they did that, they would be entitled to exemption. All that the hon. Member is suggesting, as I understand it, in his Amendment is that where a scheme is made which embraces land in respect of which the owners—

Mr. Soames: Driving the hon. Gentleman's argument to its logical conclusion, may I ask him if he would agree that if an occupier has contributed to the general charge under the Bill, he should not also be asked to contribute to the special charge?

Mr. Fletcher: I should have thought in the ordinary case, no. There may be exceptions, but in the ordinary case, I should have thought Chat he would be entitled to some measure of exemption. I think that this is what the hon. Member is suggesting—that there should be some measure of exemption for the protection of such people.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman read Clause 1?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to give way again. I have listened to the arguments on this Amendment, and I rose to say that my sympathies are with the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely. I think that he is on a fair point, and I hope that the House will agree that it is not reasonable that a person who has contributed to a scheme under Section 52 of the 1930 Act should be asked to contribute to a scheme that will be made under Clause 3 of this Bill. I hope that the hon. Member will press the Amendment to a Division.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I say, with respect, to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that I am sorry if my own lucidity in trying to interpret

the law was as unclear to him as his own attempts to do the same thing have invariably been to me? I think that some part of his difficulty arises out of a misunderstanding on the part of my right hon. Friend of my remarks, when he said that my object, he thought, was to avoid any land which had already been dealt with under Clause 27 of the Bill, or had been dealt with under Section 52 of the 1930 Act, being brought into any new scheme under Clause 3 of this Bill. That was not my object. My object was to ensure that, if it was brought in, the person concerned did not have to pay twice. That was my purpose, and I certainly had foreseen the situation arising in which land which had been covered under a Clause 27 scheme would become part of a bigger scheme under Clause 3 of the Bill. It was merely to cover the position of the owner-occupier—and here the hon. Gentleman opposite appears to have understood what I was trying to say—where the owner, as the owner, had paid under a Clause 27 scheme, and now, as the occupier, has to pay under a Clause 3 scheme. That is what I was most anxious to avoid happening.
9.45 p.m.
Subject to that comment on my right hon. Friend's remarks, I entirely accept that he conceives it to be the duty of Ministers, when schemes are put up under Clause 3, carefully to consider whether there is some injustice arising if the special agricultural charge is also made on areas where Clause 27 schemes have come into being. Provided that we can be certain that that is part of the Minister's duty and that between now and the Bill going to another place my right hon. Friend will consider inserting a provision to oblige the Minister to take those factors into account, I shall be satisfied. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will try to do so himself, but that may be a matter of his good will, and we must be sure that there is an obligation on the Minister in this respect.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(OPERATION AND INCIDENCE OF DRAINAGE CHARGES.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, after "to", to insert "demand or".

Mr. Speaker: It is obviously convenient with this Amendment to discuss that in page 5, line 35, to leave out "payable" and to insert "thereof".

Mr. Soames: These Amendments arise out of an assurance which I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) in Standing Committee. This is on the de minimus point. As drafted, the Bill provided that a river board need not enforce payment if the sum was so small as not to warrant the bother. My right hon. Friend said that that did not go far enough and imposed an unnecessary duty upon the board, and he asked whether the Bill could not provide that there was no need for the property to be assessed if it were too small.
The board has to assess the property in order to know whether it is too small, and it would be taking the matter too far not to assess the property. But I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is not going far enough merely to say that the river board need not enforce payment. It need not even demand it, and that is what has been left out.
The Amendments will improve the Bill and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. We have provided that a river board need neither demand nor enforce payment in those circumstances.

Mr. Turton: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting my point so completely. This will give great relief to many small farmers in many parts of the country.

Mr. Peart: We are very glad that the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in Committee has been accepted. The Amendments make a considerable improvement to the Bill and will help many small farmers, and we are grateful to the Minister for them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, leave out "payable" and insert "thereof".—[Mr. Soames.]

Mr. Peart: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, at the end to insert:
(8) A river board may reduce or remit payment of a drainage charge on account of the poverty of any person liable to the payment thereof.

I do not think that I need go into an elaborate explanation of the purpose of this Amendment. If it is felt that a person is unable to make a payment we think that this subsection (8) would help matters. It is obvious that there might be cases of hardship which would be covered. This would enable a board to reduce or remit the payment of a drainage charge on account of the poverty of a person. The Minister may have reasons for not accepting the Amendment, but we should like to hear his views on it.

Mr. Soames: I fully appreciate what lies behind this Amendment, but I think that, on reflection, the House would not accept it.
What the hon. Member for Working-ton (Mr. Peart) is suggesting is that the river board should be the judge as to whether someone's financial situation is such that it would be all right to take a drainage charge from him or not. I think that the House will agree that river boards are not fitted to be judges in this respect. It is for the boards to arrange the charge and to say that it must be and will be paid. There are well-known ways in which people can have recourse, if they have no money to meet these payments, to the National Assistance Board and the like in the case of rent. That is the body where poverty should be judged, not the river board. I perfectly see the point the hon. Member has made, that he does not want someone in very severe financial straits to contribute, but that is the way in which that should be met, not by the river board.

Mr. Jeger: I cannot agree with the Minister that the river boards should not exercise judgment in cases of this kind. We have just seen the acceptance of a proviso that a river board shall decide whether the amount of drainage rate is worth collecting, because of the possible cost of making the collection. Surely if the river board is allowed to exercise its opinion in the case where it is balancing possible revenue against known expenditure on cost of collection, it can exercise its judgment about the poverty of the person against whom the rate is levied.
I see that the Minister is laughing, but this is done by every local authority which is a rate levying authority. Those


authorities assess for rates and finance committees decide to remit the rates either totally or in part in such cases. They take into account the financial position of the ratepayer and accept or reject recommendations of their principal rating officers in each particular case on its merits. It seems that the river board should do exactly the same. The board would know the state of affairs of the person on whom the special drainage rate was being levied. If it came to the conclusion that there was poverty, why should it not be empowered to remit either part or the whole of the rate? I hope that the Minister will take a more humane view of this sort of thing and give the river board the power which an ordinary local authority already has in respect of ordinary rates.

Mr. Turton: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger). I am certain that farmers who are concerned about this would not want to disclose their means to the clerk to the river board. As the Minister said, these matters are far better handled through the good offices of the National Assistance Board, which has a great deal of tact. I should not applaud bringing in a sort of means test to the business of new drainage boards. I am sure that would be a great mistake. If hon. Members of the party opposite think the matter over quietly they will see that they would be doing something which their constituents would not want at all.

Mr. Willey: I do not think the right hon. Member is right in suggesting that this is a party matter. I cross swords with him on one point. We should not assume that the only people who will be paying drainage rates are farmers, for railwaymen, farm workers and others are concerned. That is something we should consider in the context of the Amendment.
I am impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) said. When listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I felt sure that there was a precedent for this and the right hon. Gentleman has not challenged it. If there is a precedent about rates generally, I should have thought it desirable that the drainage authority should be in the same

position as the local authority. I see no reason to differentiate. I see the difference between this Amendment and previous Amendments we discussed, about whether it is worth the cost of recovering a rate because the amount is too small. That is a matter which a drainage authority can very easily decide in the light of its own knowledge, but this also is something which it should be able to consider for this is a matter in which discretion is allowed to authorities which raise general rates.
I can see a very good purpose in having such discretion as this. That is why I do not complain about the word "poverty". There are cases in which the rates may be rather larger—

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member is talking about rates, but this provision does not deal with a drainage rate. It deals with a drainage charge levied wholly on agricultural hereditaments and lands. Therefore, all his talk about railwaymen is completely off the point.

Mr. Willey: I accept what the right hon. Member says, but I do not accept the difference between rates and charges. A rating authority raising rates is in a very similar position. If it has discretion, discretion ought also to be allowed in this case.
Quite apart from the question with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in his previous Amendment, I can see a good argument for a further extension by which the "poverty"—to use the word in the Amendment—of the person upon whom the charge is imposed should be considered. I can conceive of cases where it would be impolitic, because of the condition of the person concerned, to pursue the matter further.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced an argument that I do not like at all, and the sooner we get away from it the better. That argument is, "All this does not really matter, because you can go to the Assistance Board." That is quite intolerable. Are we now providing for an army of bureaucrats at the Assistance Board? Far better to allow ordinary, reasonable discretion here to decide, in view of the circumstances of the person upon whom the charge is imposed it would be a hardship upon him to enforce this, or, alternatively, if we tried to enforce it we would be in an invidious


position. Far better to allow discretion to a body than to say, "Well, there will not be any hardship because, after all, he can go to the Assistance Board."
The House should not encourage people to meet charges unfairly and unnecessarily imposed on them by using that argument. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not rely on that ground, but will say that discretion analogous to that allowed in similar cases should be allowed here.

Sir R. Nugent: I do not disagree with the last point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), that there should be discretion where it can be used, but I disagree with the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger), because I do not believe that his is a true analogy. A local authority has fairly close personal contact with the people who live in its area. It has contact through housing committees—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Land Drainage Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Soames.]

Question again proposed, That those words foe there inserted in the Bill.

Sir R. Nugent: A local authority has contact through a number of personal services. A local authority area is relatively small, so the council knows a good deal about the people living in its area, and can properly, and with reasonable accuracy, assess whether or not there is a case of poverty.
A river board is in quite a different position. Its area may stretch over several counties and over dozens and dozens of local authority areas, and its knowledge of the individual circumstances of any farmer or farm holding in its area would be very slight, indeed. It would find it quite impossible to collect the information necessary to judge whether any individual occupier was in financial difficulty. It would be in the dilemma that it would either need a very much bigger staff than it has at present, or would be judging a case on very incomplete information.
I suggest that, although the object of the Amendment is one with which I

sympathise, the hon. Gentleman's analogy is not sound; that we would not get a reliable result, and that the only person who would be likely to benefit would be the one who pleaded poverty, knowing that the board had no means of checking his circumstances. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press an Amendment which river boards would find extremely difficult to operate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Sir R. Nugent: I beg to move, in page 9, line 30, at the end to insert:
and 'agriculture' shall be construed accordingly".
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the definition of agriculture is wide enough to meet the needs of the word "agriculture" mentioned in terms of the special charge in Clause 3. A river board proposing to raise the special charge must establish that it will be for the benefit of agriculture, but the House will observe that this Clause defines "agricultural land" as having the meaning given to it by Section 29 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930.
Section 29 of the 1930 Act goes very wide indeed. It includes as agricultural land plantations or woods for the growth of underwood for sale, poultry farming, market gardens, nursery grounds, orchards, and allotments. It goes very wide to make quite sure that everything that can be regarded as agricultural land is covered. Without any statutory definition, the word "agriculture" does not go nearly so widely, and, without any definition in the Bill, it presumably means what the dictionary says it means, which does not include either horticulture or forestry.
I raised this point in the Standing Committee, and my hon. Friend said that he would see whether the Bill could be improved by adding the definition of agriculture that I suggest. "Agriculture" would then have the same definition as is given to agricultural land in the 1930 Act. I believe that that is what we need in the Bill; that we want to have agriculture interpreted as widely as possible, and improve the Bill in this way.
If it is not defined in the way I suggest, the danger is that if a river board


proposed a special drainage scheme in an area largely given to horticulture an objector who did not wish to come into the scheme could reasonably put up the argument that the land was used mainly for horticulture, and, therefore, by the dictionary definition of agriculture, did not benefit agriculture, which Clause 3 specifies it must do.
It is to remove that doubt, a doubt which, I am sure, we all wish to remove, that I have tabled the Amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see fit to accept it.

Mr. Vane: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has attached great importance to ensuring that a river board will not be hindered in its work, perhaps through failure to have in the Bill a sufficient definition of "agriculture". He raised this question in Committee upstairs, and since then he has approached my right hon. Friend who has gone to a great deal of trouble to go into the point raised by my hon. Friend and to confirm that the Bill as drafted meets the needs of the case.
It perhaps seems illogical on first reading that there should be a definition of "agricultural land" in the Clause, and yet no definition of "agriculture" and that an argument should be deployed to the effect that there may well be an advantage in leaving the Bill as it is rather than in accepting the words proposed by my hon. Friend.
If I say that my right hon. Friend thinks that it is right to leave the Bill as it is, it is because he is as anxious as my hon. Friend to protect and help the river boards and not to leave them in doubt or exposed to argument about the proper exercise of their powers. The definition of "agriculture" was not left out of the Bill because of any thoughtlessness—rather the reverse.
May I try to explain to the House the reasons why my right hon. Friend has come to this conclusion? "Agricultural land" is precisely defined in the Bill, because it is on agricultural land that a charge will be made. If we hark back to the earlier discussions today, it is in the interests of the individual and for his protection that there is a precise definition in the Bill. It is to ensure that the

charge falls on those people whom Parliament intends shall meet it and not on the others. I think that all hon. Members will agree with that.
My hon. Friend suggests the addition of the words
'agriculture' shall be construed accordingly.
There is here a distinction with a considerable difference. What we are now concerned with are drainage schemes in the interests of agriculture. Clause 3 (1) says:
Where it appears to a river board that the interests of agriculture in the river board area or any part of it require the carrying out of drainage works…
The sense of the word "agriculture", which is the key to this question is very much wider than the narrower definition of the land which shall attract this special charge.
We have also made it clear in the course of the debate that in many cases a river board will propose special schemes financed by a special drainage charge covering quite large areas of the country—perhaps even the entire area of a river board. In consequence, if the definition of "agriculture" is not wide, we will open the door wide to criticisms and objections by other interests who will say that the river board is exceeding its powers. My hon. Friend has, in fact, referred to the dictionary, and he said that in the absence of a precise definition in the Bill, the Oxford Dictionary definitions might be held to be a guide. I, too, referred to the Oxford Dictionary and the third definition is "harming in the widest sense" which, I should have thought, was not the sort of definition we are here seeking.
Hon. Members who took part in the Committee discussions upstairs will remember that what we have in mind is general improvement schemes on a wide scale and often schemes which will take up village flooding problems en route. I am sure that it would be a mistake for us to hamper a river board in such a way that it could not when planning to exercise the powers under Clause 3 at the same time work generally for the improvement of agriculture and it may be deal with village flooding problems. Often it would happen that those living in the village would be basically farmers or farmworkers or people closely associated with agriculture. I


suggested to the Committee that in this case we should be wise to allow the definition of agriculture to be read as widely as possible.
There are further safeguards.
Where it appears to a river board
that the work is in the
interests of agriculture…
It certainly has a definition there. Further, there is the additional safeguard that such special schemes need the approval of my right hon. Friend, and where it appeared to him that any special scheme was going far outside the general object, I am sure that he would not approve. I should have thought that the river board was better protected, if the purpose of this Amendment is to protect the river board, by leaving this definition wide rather than defining it narrowly, in that there would be much more scope for argument whether the course of action being pursued was either within or outside its power.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that my right hon. Friend has gone into this matter with very great care and that he has no doubt that the right course is to leave the definition as wide as possible.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has his name to this Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent). After listening to the Minister I think that a case has been made out to leave the matter as it is in the Bill, and that to have a wide definition is the wisest thing. I know that this is a difficult matter. In all agricultural legislation of which I have had experience in this House, whenever the question of a definition of agricultural terms has arisen there has

been a variation of opinion. Hon. Members can quote dictionaries, but even dictionary definitions vary. I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made out his case. We are here seeking to help river boards whose point of view has throughout been represented by the hon. Member for Guildford, because he feels that their work is important.
I am sure that, with the advice of his Department about definitions, the Minister has taken the right course. The hon. Member for Guildford quoted examples, including poultry and other different undertakings, which were covered by definition in the old Act, but I still think it wise to have a wide definition so that the work of the river boards is not hampered. We shall support the Minister even if the hon. Member for Guildford decides to press his Amendment.

10.15 p.m.

Sir R. Nugent: With the combined persuasiveness of both Front Benches bearing on me I should indeed be insensitive if I did not agree that a case has been made out against the Amendment, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the excellence of his argument. I accept the assurance, which is what I desired, that the term which governs the meaning of agriculture in this respect is agriculture in the widest sense. My object was to get the definition wide enough and my impression was that the Bill as drafted contained too narrow a definition. I accept the assurance of my hon. Friend which was supported by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart).
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18.—(SEA DEFENCE WORKS.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 10, line 38, after "water," to insert "or tidal water."
Perhaps with this Amendment we might also discuss the two following Amendments in lines 40 and 45.
If I in any way disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) when replying to the last Amendment, it will be appreciated by those hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill that these three Amendments are tabled in response to representations made by my hon. Friend during the Committee stage discussions. In other words, they are a present to him because he expressed doubts whether the Clause as originally worded would give river boards sufficiently precise powers about what they could do in such circumstances as the erection of groynes near a river mouth extending into tidal waters, and works alongside estuaries.
In fact they are virtually drafting Amendments. We had not intended to hamper any river board which needed to construct such a groyne and, since my hon. Friend who has had great experience of working with river boards felt that the wording might have been better, we looked into the matter again, and my right hon. Friend put down these three Amendments. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford will feel that his representations have been met.

Mr. Fletcher: I understand that with the Amendment moved by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary we are also considering the two Amendments proposed by the Minister in lines 40 and 45. I regard these three Amendments as of some importance and I understand that the Minister is proposing them as a gesture to his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent).

Mr. Vane: This is not only a gesture to my hon. Friend. The Amendments are moved because my right hon. Friend thought it right.

Mr. Fletcher: I should like the House to consider whether it is right to accept these Amendments. I consider this a matter of some importance. The second of these Amendments proposes that we should insert these words in page 10 at the end of line 40:
and for the purposes of this subsection the river board area shall be deemed to extend beyond the low-water mark.
What does that mean? How far out to sea is the jurisdiction of river boards to go?

Sir D. Glover: As far as the Continental Shelf.

Mr. Fletcher: I think that was intended as a flippant observation.
This is a matter of great seriousness. It is most important that there should be a clearly delineated mark between the responsibilities of river boards for drainage within their areas, and the responsibility of local authorities for coastal protection. I am concerned about that.
Unfortunately, during the last few years, this country has suffered from certain catastrophes which have resulted in the loss of some life and the destruction of a great deal of property. Some of these calamities have resulted from flooding, others from tidal action, and it is important, before we accept this Amendment, that we should know what effect it will have on the respective responsibilities of those responsible for coastal protection work on the one hand, and those responsible for river drainage operations on the other.
I have always thought that there was a great distinction between those two aspects. One of the relevant considerations is that local authorities with coastal responsibilities have been encouraged, under the 1949 Act which followed the Waverley Report, to undertake work of coastal protection. A large Exchequer grant was provided for that purpose of trying to protect areas against the kind of calamities from which we have suffered in recent years.
I hope that we shall make it clear that there will be no risk of overlapping the responsibilities of local authorities with coastal responsibilities and river board areas. That is why I should be disturbed if we passed the Amendment without a further explanation from the


Government. Let us remember that, for the first time, river boards are being given responsibilities beyond the low-water mark. In the White Paper Cmnd. 916, dealing with land drainage, there is a significant footnote on page 4 which states:
The working rule for determining these areas
that is to say, the areas of drainage operation—
is contained in a document known as the 'Medway letter' the effect of which is to include within drainage districts…
I need not quote the next section, which is concerned with agricultural land, but the footnote adds:
…land in developed urban areas in general up to flood level; or up to tidal levels.
The House will be aware that it is difficult to define, in connection with any river area, exactly how far tidal water goes. Whereas I can understand a reference in an Act of Parliament to "sea water", we should be quite clear what we are doing by inserting, as the Minister suggests, "water or tidal water" and, in addition, giving river board areas certain rights and duties beyond the low-water mark.
This is an important matter because the White Paper refers to the history of this subject and, in paragraph 2, tells us that drainage authorities date back to the reign of Henry III. The respective obligations either of coastal areas or of the whole country involving certain national responsibilities, particularly with regard to the coastline, and the maintenance of the Navy is a matter of great constitutional importance. All cases associated with Hampden and ship-money revolved around the question whether the inland areas were liable to contribute to the Navy, or whether that was solely the responsibility of the coastal areas.
Therefore, this matter has a considerable constitutional ancestry behind it, and in view of what happened in recent years we should make it abundantly clear that coastal protection of all kinds is primarily a national responsibility and is something quite different from the responsibility of river boards dealing with their own catchment areas.
That is why I am a little disturbed to find in connection with a Land Drainage

Bill dealing primarily with the protection of agricultural land the startling proposal that river boards shall be given rights and duties beyond low-water mark. I want the Minister to tell us what is the significance of this rather startling provision, whether it is intended to have any bearing on the obligations of local authorities under the Coastal Protection Act and whether he is quite sure that the introduction of these words will not introduce some undesirable element of confusion with respect to the responsibilities of these various authorities.

Sir D. Glover: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and I had a mental picture of sea-walls being eroded by the seas and rivers that make up the bulk of his constituency.
Obviously, there is bound to be some overlapping. If the hon. Member were to watch a river running into the sea he would see that the fresh water and the sea water overlap each other to a considerable distance. I think it is true to say that one can get a cup of fresh water from the sea 500 miles from the mouth of the Amazon. That indicates how difficult this matter is.
If the drainage channel of a river is altered, some other place on the coast is silted up. Surely if a river board, by driving that channel in a different direction, has altered the coastline, it should have some responsibility for the maintenance of the sea defence work to which this Bill refers. I do not understand what the hon. Member is worrying about. There is bound to be a degree of overlapping, and I only hope that as a result of our discussions he will have no more trouble in his area.

Sir R. Nugent: May I thank my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for implementing the undertaking which he kindly gave in Committee that he would meet the points which I raised relating to instances where the Clause as drafted was not sufficiently clear or did not go quite far enough.
I do not think the House would expect me to deal with the very wide point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), but perhaps I can help him a little by reminding him that, in the main, river boards are the authorities responsible for coastal protection.


This is because of their responsibility to get the land drained in the areas for which they are responsible. It may seem a little anomalous, but that is the case. The actual coastal protection functions that fall upon local authorities on the coast are quite small.
If the hon. Member will cast his mind back to 1953 when we passed emergency legislation to deal with the flooding following the tidal surge in January of that year, he will recollect that about 99 per cent. of the responsibility fell upon the river boards, especially those on the East Coast, as the agents of Parliament to carry out the large coastal works that were necessary to improve the coastal defences. The apparent suspicion which the hon. Member has that river boards are straying beyond their proper function in dealing with coastal matters is, I think, a misapprehension.
10.30 p.m.
On the specific point about the low-water mark, we were dealing in Standing Committee with a very small matter indeed. Up to now the general belief had been that the jurisdiction of river boards stopped at low-water mark. In fact, it extends beyond that, of necessity, if the boards are to fulfil their function. It was in order to clear the matter up that I asked my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to agree to some Amendment to ensure that river boards would not be in difficulty in future.
The other point is the confusion that arises in estuaries where it is difficult to tell where fresh water ends and sea water begins, because with the movement of tides there is sometimes a mixture of the two. Again, I asked whether my hon. Friend would move an Amendment to deal with this point. Now these matters are left in a satisfactory state as a result of these Amendments on the Order Paper and I hope that the House will agree with them.

Mr. Vane: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has replied very largely to them, the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) addressed some comments to me, I give him the assurance he requested that we are not throwing away the liberties of England here to please my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.
The Amendments deal with responsibilities for coast defences relating to

flooding and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has said, it is impossible to keep fresh and sea water apart. There is a certain overlap and it is impossible to see how a river board could function effectively if its powers stopped at the point of low-water mark. The hon. Member for Islington. East referred to the Medway letter. I am sure that he will not mind my saying that that letter referred to what property should be in and what property should be outside drainage districts. Here we are concerned with river boards and their powers.
These provisions are designed to make it possible for river boards to exercise their proper functions in ensuring that the danger of flooding is not increased by virtue of tidal movements and to ensure that the boards are not prevented from undertaking sea-defence works upon long groynes because in an estuary or river mouth they extend to tidal or sea water. We consider that the new wording improves the Clause and I hope that the hon. Member for Islington, East will accept my assurance that this is the purpose of the Amendments.

Mr. Willey: I am far from clear about this now. I almost wish that the Amendments had been moved formally. When I first saw them on the Order Paper I thought that I understood their effect. Now I have grave doubts about it. I was disturbed to hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) about estuaries. The hon. Member spoke about the Amazon running 500 miles out to sea. Apparently if there is an Amazon River Board we are asked to assume that its powers run to that extent.

Mr. Vane: My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the Amazon.

Sir D. Glover: This House having no jurisdiction over estuaries in Brazil, is not this out of order?

Mr. Willey: I am in the usual difficulty in reply to the hon. Member who takes refuge in the argument that what he was saying was out of order. We ought to approach this matter with caution, because we are in enough difficulty about jurisdiction in territorial waters without appearing anxious to extend their extent. That was why I raised a cautionary note on what the


Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his hon. Friend had said.
My second point is that in Standing Committee, among the undertakings that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave—I recognise that he has endeavoured to honour those he gave when we discussed Clause 18—he said that
we should also clear up this matter of where the river ends and the sea begins, thereby enabling a river board to do its job properly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 15th December, 1960; c.287.]
The hon. Gentleman has not accomplished that, because, although we have been told the purpose of the Amendments, there is doubt about their effect.
Having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I consider that there is ambiguity in the wording of the Amendment in line 40, which extends the provisions of subsection (1). It states that
for the purposes of this subsection the river board area shall be deemed to extend beyond the low-water mark.
Where will the area end? What limitation is there upon the effect of the Amendment? My hon. Friend has raised a valid point.
There was reason for my not wanting the House to leave these Amendments with complacency. When we discussed them in Standing Committee, I made the point that we should not create the impression that we were doing much to solve the problem of sea defences. I was supported by, I believe, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland). That is why I add the cautionary word that if, in spite of these ambiguities, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is improving the position, nevertheless, in view of reports which we have had, the burden is on the Government to take much more effective steps about our coastal defences and not to create the impression that by meeting these procedural difficulties the Government have done much to effect any greater sea defence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 40, at end insert:

and for the purposes of this subsection the river board area shall be deemed to extend beyond the low-water mark.
In line 45, after "water," insert "or tidal water."—[Mr. Vane.]

Clause 20.—(ALLOCATION OF REVENUE OF RIVER BOARD IN LIEU OF CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER S. 21 OF THE ACT OF 1930.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 11, line 34, to leave out "their area" and to insert
the internal drainage district.
In Standing Committee, it was represented that the original wording of the Clause imposed a duty on the river board in these circumstances to publish notices in newspapers circulating beyond the area where they were relevant, which was the area of the internal drainage district and not the area of the river board as a whole. The Amendment, which certainly interprets the feeling of the Committee upstairs, will, I am sure, meet the feelings of the House this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Stross: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, after "county," to insert "county district."
There is importance in the Amendment and I sincerely hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept the change that we propose. Earlier today, on Recommittal, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend made good the promises that were made in Standing Committee by introducing Amendments in the First Schedule, page 31, lines 31 and 33, to add "county district."
Clause 20 (3) gives drainage ratepayers and counties and county boroughs the right to appeal to the Minister about the amount specified by the river board or because the river board has not exercised the powers which it has. None the less, as it stands subsection (3) gives no such right to county district councils. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary will argue that the reason it is not given is because, as it stands, the Clause gives drainage ratepayers, on the one hand, and precept paying authorities on the other, the right of appeal.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says that, may I beg him to consider a further point which is that the county councils,


in their turn, precept upon the district councils, and it is for this reason that I am appealing to the hon. Gentleman to add the words "county district" so that it, too, may have the right of appeal.
My argument is something like this. There are a number of counties where part of the county which is within the area of a particular river board is much smaller than the area of the county as a whole, and a special county rate is there made and is precepted upon the county districts which lie in that part of the county which is in the river board area. I am sorry that this sounds complicated, but it is really very obvious.
In these circumstances, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow me here. The county council as a whole is not so deeply concerned with the local district problems. This fact is very well known to people who serve in areas like these, and it is not easy to get the county council to show much enthusiasm even when it turns its attention to these problems. But the problems are, none the less, serious problems.
These are the reasons why I feel that only good can come from adding the words "county district" so that it, too, shall have the right of appeal.

Mr. Vane: This is a rather complicated point, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was correct in anticipating the greater part of my reply. What we are dealing with here—I say this for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not in the Committee—is the fact that river boards maintaining drainage districts will be able to make contributions to or acquire contributions from the funds of the district. County and county borough councils have a direct financial interest in the allocation of funds from internal drainage boards to river boards, because river boards obtain a large part of their income from precepts on counties and county boroughs. Therefore, it is right that they should be able to appeal to the Minister against a resolution of a river board relating to an internal drainage district which it administers.
That is the problem with which we are concerned, and the hon. Member was quite right when he said that when the Bill was drafted it gave the right of appeal in those circumstances to this

sufficient number of qualified persons, the people actually paying the rate from their own pockets, and the county or county borough wholly or in part in the river board area since the river board has to make some precept upon them.
I think that we must set some limit to the number of authorities which have rights of appeal under these circumstances. It is not a very big point. We thought that the right thing to do, generally speaking, was to give the right of appeal to the authorities which had the biggest financial interest in the ratepayers themselves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, because it seems to me to be rather adding an elaboration where really there is no great justification for it. I see his point, and I think it a perfectly reasonable one to bring before us again.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Willey: If this is a reasonable point, one would expect it to be accepted. What I was expecting to hear was whether anyone had opposed the proposal in the Amendment. I assume from the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) moved it that there is influential support for it.

Dr. Stross: Hear, hear.

Mr. Willey: I assume that the Association of Municipal Corporations would welcome such an Amendment. Has anyone made representations against it? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's view is that it is reasonable. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be better to accept the Amendment and so provide that this part of the county should have this right of representation.

Mr. Vane: Perhaps I was unwise to use the word "reasonable". The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) was reasonable and it was a point to bring forward and discuss, but I think it is more reasonable to leave the Bill as it is. We have had no great representations on the point, and I can assure hon. Members that the Bill as drafted follows the precedent of the 1930 Act which dealt with a similar problem in the days of the independent drainage boards. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Dr. Stross: I am broken-hearted that so late at night we cannot get anything from the Joint Parliamentaory Secretary. It is too bad. After all, he and his right hon. Friend gave exactly this point when we were dealing with the risk of flooding as a result of obstruction in streams, when we argued that it was the district which was near the point of danger; and thus that provision has been inserted in the Bill.
Here we are dealing with a matter where honour is affected. District councils do not like to be precepted upon by county councils and then told that they will have no opportunity of an appeal such as the county councils have. There was substance in my point that in these special circumstances as I illustrated them a great authority like a county council does not tend to show much interest in or enthusiasm for local problems of this type.
I do not demand of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary a yea or nay necessarily just now. There is still a little time; the Bill will go to another place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) suggested, great thought has been given to this matter by the Association of Municipal Corporations and it has discussed it at the Ministry and it thinks it important. In view of that, I still beg that further consideration should be given to the subject before the Bill is looked at in another place.

Sir D. Glover: I thought that my hon. Friend would have accepted the Amendment. Take the case of the Lancashire County Council. On the seaward side of the county there are river board areas. On the landward side there are many industrial constituencies which return members to the county council. Honestly, they know very little about land drainage and could not care less. The people who understand the problem are those in the actual district where the problem arises.
The Amendment would not make a great change in status. There are not all that number of county district authorities. It would mean only that there would be a greater sense of justice. I hope even now that when the Bill goes to another place my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter, because I am sure that we should improve

the Bill if we gave county districts the right to make a protest.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21.—(ASSESSMENT OF DRAINAGE RATES ON AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, to leave out Clause 21.
This Amendment is entirely consequential on the fact that the substance of Clause 21 is now included in one of my right hon. Friend's new Clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(DIFFERENTIAL DRAINAGE RATES.)

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 14, line 28, after "a" to insert "similar".
This is a small point which becomes obvious on reading the Clause, which says:
This section does not require a drainage board to consider any petition or publish any notice of a petition—

(a) if it has received a petition under this section within the period of ten years immediately preceding the making of the first-mentioned petition…"

We think that it would be better if the word "similar" were inserted here to define "petition".

Mr. Vane: There was a good deal of discussion on the Clause in Committee, because we wanted to be fair to both the drainage authorities and to individuals. We had to guard against the authorities having to deal over and over again with petitions drafted on largely the same grounds. We wanted to ensure that drainage authorities had some assurance of continuity, because big drainage works cannot be planned and carried out if areas are to be frequently changed.
Some hon. Members felt that the ten-year period would work hardly and might mean that some people would for some time suffer a feeling of grievance if they could not petition for some differential drainage rate proposal because there had been another petition over a period of ten years.
The Amendment does not meet the point. We have to bear in mind that a drainage board is not precluded from doing what it thinks is right and proper simply because it has not received a petition. Therefore, except at ten-yearly


intervals, it is not prevented from doing what it thinks is right on its own, or from carrying out a responsibly made suggestion. All we have said is that this procedure of petition, which is a considerable safeguard to individuals, shall not be resorted to time and time again in such a way as to make the administration of the drainage boards difficult.
We considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but we concluded that it did not meet all the objections, because if a tiresome person set his mind to it, he could produce petitions, if not annually, then at very short intervals, which could not be excluded on the ground that they were similar, but which would have the same object in view. We felt that a ten-year period was not unreasonable, because when this procedure is used, proper notice has to be given and a petition does not slip through without all those concerned knowing about it. This is not something which is done on the quiet between the petitioners and the board. Those concerned with these matters will notice that a petition has been made.
My right hon. Friend has put down an Amendment which we shall shortly be considering and which we feel would be a protection to the individual ratepayer in certain circumstances. I should like the House to agree that the addition of the word "similar" here does not meet the objective. It does not protect the drainage board from tiresome petitions repeated at short interval, which could not be described as similar and which attain the same object on the same grounds. I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that drainage boards want to do their work responsibly. They will not remain entirely inactive unless forced to do something by the process of petition. We have to leave this to the good sense of drainage boards and leave the petitioning procedure, which is a formal procedure to which great publicity is given, as something which cannot be called into use too often.
When the Bill as it is now drafted is read in connection with my right hon. Friend's Amendment, I think that hon. Members will feel that we have provided a better protection for the general run of ratepayers than the hon. Member's proposal, although I appreciate what he has set out to achieve.

Mr. Willey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that generous acknowledgment of my objective. Although I am not absolutely satisfied, I recognise that there is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman has said. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, to leave out paragraph (b) and to insert:
(b) if it has, within that period, by an order made under the said section twenty-four, divided its district into sub-districts or varied or abolished any sub-district; or,
This Amendment is a protection to the ratepayer. It prevents a drainage board from taking action on its own by small varyings of the fraction of the differential rate and so ruling people out from petitioning. As the Bill stands, it is possible for a drainage board to vary its fraction when dealing with differential rates, that is to say, to make minor changes and a consequential arrangement so that things work harder for the drain-This is a complicated point will see that I hope that hon. Members it is designed to give the individual drainage ratepayer wider rights than he had under the original draft and, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(EXEMPTION FROM DRAINAGE RATES.)

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, at the end to add:
(3) Where such a request is neither refused nor complied with within three months after it is made, it shall be deemed to have been refused.
This Amendment is to ensure that a request is not sat on by the authority for too long. It is to provide that on a request for exemption from drainage rates there is no undue delay before the individual has a right of appeal to the Minister. This Clause deals with exemption from drainage rates on the individual who feels that the location of his property is such that it lies outside the definition which would bring him within a drainage district. It would be possible in some cases for a request to be taken out of a drainage district to be refused by the river board. He then has an appeal to the river board and, where the board is the authority, he has a right of appeal to the Minister.
The time limit we now propose is intended to allow an aggrieved individual to appeal to the river board or to the Minister within a reasonable time. It would otherwise be possible for the drainage board to be extremely dilatory in dealing with what is really not a very important piece of business. It is in the interests of the individual, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." Those in favour say, "Aye"; to the contrary "No." I think the "Ayes" have it.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out "three" and to insert "six."
Our purpose is really to discover whether our guess is as good as the hon. Gentleman's, and it is a matter on which we should be assured—

Mr. Turton: Mr. Turton rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. If I may say so, I have been in error. I should have called the hon. Member to move his Amendment before I put the Question. The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." I called the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to move the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out "three" and to insert "six."

Mr. Willey: That is what I understood—

Mr. Turton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We have already passed my hon. Friend's Amendment; it is part of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman says is quite true. I did it in error, and I hoped that the House would allow me to correct myself.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the House would, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I will not detain hon. Members long, having got this fortuitous opportunity to speak to the Amendment.
I do not think that anyone would quarrel with the purpose of the Amendment

moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. None would want anyone to be unduly prejudiced by dilatory action on the part of the public authority, but whether the period should be three months or six months is a difficult matter to decide. One would have to know a good deal about the experience of the boards concerned. We tabled our Amendment on the specific point of the time-limit in order to satisfy ourselves that this limit was fair both to the aggrieved party and to the authority which had to take the decision.

Mr. Vane: We considered this Amendment when it was tabled, and it seemed to us that it is not such a very big question to decide; that three months was ample time for an authority to deal with such a problem. It is an intimate sort of problem, and not one that should give an authority a great deal of trouble and work.

Mr. Willey: In view of that explanation, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Clause 25.—(REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTION FROM WATERCOURSES.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, after "board" to insert "concerned."
It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker if, with this Amendment, we took that in page 15, line 15.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, and the following one—or not?

Mr. Soames: No, I think only those two, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is the convenience of the House.

Mr. Soames: This point was drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) in Committee upstairs, and we gave him an assurance that this point would be met. He pointed out that the Clause as now worded enabled either a river board or an internal drainage district to order the


removal of obstructions in a watercourse in an internal drainage district. If the order for the removal of obstructions could be given by either the river board or the internal drainage district, this divided responsibility might lead to complications, and it was thought that it would be better to set out whose responsibility it was.
The two Amendments taken together have that effect. They will ensure that the responsibility for the removal of obstructions from a watercourse within an internal drainage district rests with the internal drainage district and not with the river board, even though the river flows through both the internal drainage district and the river board area.
I believe that this meets the point made by my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for having brought it to our attention.

Sir R. Nugent: I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting the point I raised. I apologise for raising so many complexities. I am satisfied that the point I raised has been fully met.

Mr. Peart: We accept the Amendment. We realise that it is important to clear up this question of divided responsibility. There is no point in going into further detail. The Minister has made his case, and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) was right to raise this point. We are glad that it has been met.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 15, at end insert:
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section the drainage board concerned shall be—

(a) in relation to a watercourse in an internal drainage district, other than a watercourse forming part of the main river, the internal drainage board;
(b) in relation to any other watercourse, the river board.—[Mr. Soames.]

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end to insert
except in a case where it is not practicable, after reasonable inquiry, to ascertain the name and address of the owner or occupier".
This Amendment is also designed to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) who pointed out that the intention of the Clause, which was to enable obstructions to be removed from water-courses,

might be frustrated if the board concerned could not for some reason or other find the owner or occupier of the adjoining land. That could happen. This point crossed our minds, and my hon. Friend brought it to our attention.
The Amendment will make it possible for action to be taken if, after reasonable inquiry by the drainage board, the owner or occupier of the adjoining land cannot be traced. If, after reasonable inquiry, he cannot be traced, the board can move in and see that the obstruction is removed.
My hon. Friend saw some possibility of difficulty if the owner or occupier refused consent to a watercourse being cleared. If that happened, the drainage board would be able to serve a notice on the owner or occupier, so that there is no need for an amendment on that point. The other point is, however, covered by this Amendment.

Sir R. Nugent: May I again thank the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking? I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(SPOIL.)

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, after "watercourse" to insert:
or on such width of land adjoining the watercourse as is specified in the next following subsection".
I think that hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will agree that this Clause probably took up more time and exercised our thoughts more than any other Clause. It is difficult to define what is a bank of a river on which spoil can be deposited. We tried all ways and means, and I was very worried at one time whether we should be able to find words to remove any doubt about what we had in mind, and at the same time satisfy those who are responsible for the drafting of Bills. We did get it after a long time. We were very lucky, because this Clause was about to be reached at the time of the Christmas Recess, so that we had the Recess to think about it.

Mr. Bullard: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As there is a series of Amendments on this, would it not be best to discuss them together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was not suggested to me as being convenient. It is not proposed to select the next Amendment, so I think this Amendment should be discussed as it stands.

Mr. Soames: Now that this point has been drawn to my attention, I suggest that it would be advantageous if we could discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 16, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(1B) The said width is such as is sufficient to enable the said matter to be removed and deposited by mechanical means in one operation.
They march together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would entail calling an Amendment to the second of the proposed Amendments. It is more convenient to take them one by one.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If it is any help, I should be very ready for my Amendment to the Minister's second Amendment, at the end, to add:
but without prejudice to the right of the drainage board to carry out the operations of removing, depositing or spreading such matter by separate stages at times seeming to the board to be appropriate
to be discussed now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is convenient to the House, yes.

Mr. Soames: I was saying what happened during the Christmas Recess. We had this time, and we found a way of getting round our difficulties. Roughly speaking, the problem is when one is digging out this beastly spoil from a river and putting it on the side, how far one can go without committting a nuisance along the bank? One could not define this in terms of footage of bank, because it would vary very much, with different banks, different contours, and so forth. It would be difficult to put it into a Statute and say that it should be say 30 ft.—which was suggested at one time. Another proposition was to leave it to the interpretation of the word "banks," but the courts would have difficulty in defining what was meant by "banks."
In the Amendment we say that a machine digs in and puts the spoil out, and that the limit is where the machine can reach in one operation. But the machine must not go beyond what it can do in the one operation.

11.15 p.m.
This has been agreed by all the associations who were as worried as were hon. Members in the Standing Committee and as worried as I was myself about whether we should be able to find a solution. This solution appears to be satisfactory to everyone. It is not, after all, a very complicated matter. As so often happens when a problem seems insoluble, the solution found in the end is quite a simple one. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Peart: I congratulate the Minister on his demonstration to the House. I am certain that he would make an excellent schoolmaster—

Mr. Soames: Thank you very much.

Mr. Peart: —and may yet become one.
There is only one point which worries me. I understand how difficult it is to get a definition. We had some amusing speeches in the Standing Committee. At least, they sounded very amusing; they read rather strangely now. However, if we rely on machines, as we are to do, what will happen when the machines change and develop, as they do? We are making this Amendment on the understanding of what the machines can do now. Machines vary considerably, and they are developed and changed. The time may come when the distance the spoil can now be lifted in one operation will be greater. So I think there is a difficulty about the Amendment, although, whatever definition we make, there will be the same difficulty about it. I think we have to be very careful about this, although I have no objection myself to the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister, and to thank him, because I raised this matter in the Standing Committee. This was one of the few cases in which the Minister was not following the Heneage Report. I understand the difficulty about it. "Banks" has been unfortunately defined in the case of Jones v. the Mersey River Board to the great disadvantage of all river boards and internal drainage boards in the country. It was felt necessary to get some definition.
I do not see the difficulties which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has mentioned. The whole difficulty has arisen recently because of the


cub excavators and the major excavators throwing the spoil farther and farther, so that a definition may be thrown cut of date by the advance of mechanical developments. It is much better to have a definition which keeps pace with mechanical developments.
There is one doubt in my mind. I do not see any of my constituents interested in the work of river and drainage boards playing halma with the spoil as my right hon Friend pictured in his graphic illustration. I agree that he has put forward a most satisfactory definition, and I think that we all of us ought to be very grateful to him for the very ingenious way he has done it.

Sir D. Glover: I should just like to join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I suppose he will now be able to do down in history as the first right hon. Member of this House who has used the machine age to decide legislation. Perhaps in another few years' time this will be cited as the first moment in the House when the machine took over from the human being.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: This may be a convenient moment to argue the point contained in my Amendment to the second of my right hon. Friend's proposed Amendments. The reason that I ask for this is that after the very graphic demonstration of the Minister of how he sees this spoil being removed and deposited in one operation, we are left with a mental picture of a horrible pile of earth along some of the bank, which in due course will be spread by agreement with the occupiers. This is something which is going on the whole time in the Fenland districts anyway, and in many oases it is of some agricultural benefit, especially in cases where the Fens are tending to blow away in high winds. As I read the Minister's Amendments, excellent though they are, we are somewhat tied by the Amendment in page 16, line 20, to the matter having to be removed and deposited by mechanical means in one operation.
There is not only this question of spreading the spoil after it has been deposited on the banks. I understand that in some districts—I do not think it often happens in the Fens—there is the practice of removing the spoil out of the actual course of the river, putting it into barges and towing it and depositing it

further up or down stream. I do not know if the Minister's Amendment will cover that sort of operation.
I appreciate that what my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to fix the width of ground within which spoil can be deposited, but the purpose of my Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to ensure that in getting that width—which I fully agree we must get somehow—we do not at the same time make it absolutely essential that in removing spoil from rivers it must be deposited in one movement, because I do not think it can be done on the banks of some rivers. If we read the Minister's second Amendment too rigidly, I think there is a risk of that interpretation being placed upon it in the event of a dispute in the courts, and that would be a pity because it would greatly interfere with the work of some river boards and drainage boards. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance on this point.

Mr. Bullard: I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling these Amendments. In the Standing Committee in the course of discussing one of my Amendments, various suggestions were made about the width of land which might be available to drainage boards for depositing spoil. The Association of Internal Drainage Boards, on behalf of whom I raised the matter, are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for having dealt with it as he has.
I should like to comment on a matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The question of spreading spoil is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill, though it is a matter of great importance. As a matter of fact, I think that this can be done only by agreement between the internal drainage board and the occupiers of the adjoining land. There ought to be some obligation on the board to deal with this spreading operation within a reasonable time. Most boards do so, because if they did not, these lumps of spoil would become a great eyesore, becoming covered with thistles and rubbish. It is therefore in the interests of the boards to spread this spoil.
I should like the Minister to consider a provision in the Bill to place on the boards an obligation to dispose of these eyesores which would arise if spoil were left for too long on the banks of streams.

Mr. Soames: I am glad that the Amendment seems to have found favour with all those who were so earnestly seeking the right answer to what appeared to be an intractable problem. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and echoed by my hon. Friend the member for Kings' Lynn (Mr. Bullard), spreading is not mentioned in the Clause, as my hon. Friend has just said. The Clause lays down what the drainage board can do in depositing spoil on other people's land. It limits what it can do. The whole object is to prevent boards spreading the spoil all over people's land and making a thorough nuisance of themselves. The Clause delineates what can be done to reasonably enable the board to do its job.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely is anxious to insert an Amendment to ensure that the Clause in no way interferes with spreading. No Amendment is necessary for that purpose. What we have to do statutorily is to lay down what is laid down in the Clause, to make it possible for the board to do its job and, as I have said, to stop the board from making a nuisance of itself. It happens already all the time between drainage boards and the farmers who farm land adjoining the water course that many of them arrange for the spoil, instead of being piled up, to be spread evenly.
This is in no way inhibited by the Clause as it was or as amended. It would be wrong for us to try to legislate for this kind of thing and to write into the Bill a provision that, if the owner wants it, it is incumbent upon the board to do it, or if the board wants it, it is incumbent upon the owner to help. Once what is in the Clause has been done, anything further should be left, as it is now, to common sense and to the good relationship and agreement between the farmers concerned and the drainage hoard. I suggest that this is the best way to handle the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In line 20, at end insert:
(1B) The said width is such as is sufficient to enable the said matter to be removed and deposited by mechanical means in one operation.—[Mr. Soames.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Am I right in assuming that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) does not wish to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will not seek to move that Amendment in view of what the Minister has said.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out "and" and to insert:
the drainage board may, if they think fit, pay to him such compensation as they may determine; and if".
This is not a major point but it was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and I am grateful to him for having done so. The Amendment will make this provision in the Clause simpler and fairer. As the Bill was drafted, we laid down that a board could not pay any compensation to a landowner unless it was shown that the damage had been done. In the good relationship which has to exist if arrangements are to work well between them and farmers, boards have been accustomed, if they feel that they themselves have caused him extra expense, to pay the farmer compensation if they feel that some measure of compensation is appropriate. The Amendment is designed to enable that arrangement to continue, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Member suggested in Committee. The Amendment will serve to oil the wheels generally and to maintain the situation much as it is today.

11.30 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question. He will know that in Section 34 (3) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the following appears:
Where injury is sustained by any person by reason of the exercise by a drainage board of any of its powers under this section, the board shall be liable to make full compensation to the injured person, and in case of dispute the amount of the compensation shall be determined in the manner in which disputed compensation for land is required to be determined by the Lands Clauses Acts.
What effect, if any, does my right hon. Friend's Amendment have on that subsection? Is it intended that it should no longer apply to complaints of this kind?

Mr. Soames: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires, in this form. The Amendment will ensure that river boards and drainage boards will be able to deposit spoil and pay compensation where damage is caused as they have been accustomed to do in the past and as they have been doing under the powers of the 1930 Act.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "they think fit" and to insert:
there is substantial loss or injury".
The Amendment relates to a small but important point. The Minister proposes that
the drainage board may, if they think fit, pay…such compensation as they may determine".
That is not an onerous obligation, but it meets a point that was raised in Standing Committee. We on this side wonder whether it would not be better to make the obligation specific in case of substantial loss or injury. In other words, that would be the criterion. It is more in accord with the view of the Heneage Committee. We agree that normally there would be no case for compensation. I prefer the criterion that we suggest, but I invite the Minister to express his views about it.

Mr. Soames: I quite see what the hon. Member is trying to do, but, in fact, he is running counter to our endeavour which is to meet the point made in Committee by my hon. Friend and also the wishes of the drainage boards in this respect. The drainage boards were anxious that this Clause should not be too restrictive, that they should be able to pay compensation without having to have recourse to the courts and the like if it was obvious that they had caused damage to the land.
What this Amendment will in fact do—though I appreciate what is in the hon. Member's mind—is to lay down that if
there is substantial loss or injury
then the drainage board should pay. But that, in fact, makes it much more restrictive because if we were to write these words into the Bill it would be incumbent upon the drainage boards to have it proved that substantial loss or

injury had been suffered by the individual. I am told that to prove what is substantial is difficult in the courts.
I do not think that our Amendment is in any way detracting from the right of the individual to get compensation from the drainage boards if damage is done. The object of the Amendment was to enable the drainage boards, when they so wished and at their discretion to pay compensation if they thought that they had done damage, without the man concerned having to take them to the courts to prove that the loss or injury was substantial.
Drainage boards are highly responsible bodies, and I have no doubt that they will exercise this right as they have clone in the past with the greatest care. I do not think that it would be right to impose upon them the need to have it proved that they had caused substantial loss or injury before they paid out compensation. I think, perhaps, that on reconsideration the hon. Member might withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Willey: Of course, we are not only concerned with the boards but with the person who suffers injury. We want to give him some assurance that there are conditions in which this discretion should be exercised in his favour. However, I appreciate the difficulty of the words which we propose and, on reflection, feel that they might not be as advantageous to the person injured as the present words. But I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again to see whether the words could be improved upon. In view of what the Minister has said, I would not wish to press the Amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I beg to move. That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
We have made substantial progress on the Bill during this evening. We have got well into it; we have broken its back on the Report stage, and many of the most important questions which were


worrying hon. Members have been dealt with. I feel that this has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House in a spirt of co-operation and in an endeavour to master the matters which those who have lived with the Bill realise are so important. As I say, we have made considerable progress and I suggest that we might now adjourn further consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RURAL WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend section two of the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided by way of rate-deficiency grant or Exchequer equalisation grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — MALARIA ERADICATION (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed.

That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

11.41 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: The subject that I wish to raise is the policy of the Government towards what I consider to be one of the most exciting and challenging efforts made by any of the United Nations agencies—the malaria eradication campaign which was launched by the World Health Organisation in 1955 to wipe out malaria all over the world.
The point at issue in this brief debate is the financing of the campaign and the Government's attitude towards it, but in the background lies a problem of tremendous importance to the human race, as one realises when it is appreciated that about 1,200 million people are still living in countries where they suffer to a greater or lesser extent from malaria, that a few years ago about 3 million people a year died from malaria and that in Africa even today about one in eight of the children die from malaria.
This is, therefore, a tremendous human problem which is also a tremendous economic problem, because one of the features of the disease is that it has a debilitating effect upon the communities where it is rife. People come to accept their fate as normal in the sense that they are suffering at recurring periods from this disease. It makes people lethargic and robs them of the will to work. Therefore, the eradication of malaria in under-developed countries is, apart from the human considerations, a tremendous piece of economic capital investment, and it has tremendous effects in increasing the standards of life.
I understand that in India today there are still about 50 million people a year who become ill from malaria. The annual cost of malaria to the Indian economy has been estimated at more than £180 million a year. Yet an eradication campaign in India to get rid of malaria throughout the whole country would cost less than half the annual economic cost of the disease.
In Ceylon, where malaria has been eradicated, it has been estimated that the economy has been saved about £4 million per annum. In one year this is six times as much as the cost of the eradication campaign.
We are, therefore, dealing with a subject which has tremendous implications for the human race. I must now turn to the main issue, which is the way in which the World Health Organisation has been organising and financing the campaign.
In the immediate post-war period, the World Health Organisation and a number of Governments began an intensive campaign fighting malaria by the use of DDT and other insecticides. Good progress was reported in the early years. It was felt that there would be a steady


reduction of malaria year by year and that one could therefore look forward to its disappearance by stages over a period.
Then, in about 1950 or 1951, it was realised that some strains of the malaria-bearing mosquito were developing resistance to the insecticides—DDT and the other substances—and that, although a number of insects were killed, a proportion was surviving which would then breed again. Because of that, the experts had to face the fact that they could no longer rely on steadily reducing the impact of malaria year by year, and that there had to be an intensive campaign with a view to wiping out the malaria-bearing mosquito altogether. Against that background, in 1955 the World Health Assembly launched the eradication campaign.
In doing so, the Assembly decided that the campaign should be financed by what was called the Malaria Eradication Special Account, which, in this age of initials, became M.E.S.A., but which is more often called the World Malaria Fund. The view of our Government at that time was that that was not the right way to finance it and that it should have been financed through the regular budget of the Organisation, and a number of other Governments took the same view. But it was decided to do it this way.
The campaign was started and by 1958 was under way, with real progress being made in the field. It was fairly soon realised that the fund itself was not meeting with the response hoped, and by the end of 1959 the position was serious. Only little more than £4 million had been subscribed and of that about 95 per cent. had been subscribed by the United States of America and the other 5 per cent. by relatively poor countries. Neither Britain nor any of the other developed countries had made a contribution to the special fund.
I quote from the report given to the Executive Board by Dr. Candau, the Director-General of the World Health Organisation:
We had no illusions that the campaign would be easy. But the problems are being solved and, if eradication fails, it will not be for technical reasons but because we have not got the money to carry it out.
The problem was brought to the World Health Assembly which in 1960 issued

an especially strong appeal to all the countries concerned to contribute to the special fund.
As a result of that appeal, some other countries joined in. The Soviet Union offered a contribution, as did Australia, Norway and Western Germany, and other countries which up to that point had refused to join in. The British Government still refused. Questions have been asked in the House and there was a debate in another place on the matter. The Government's reasons could be summarised in this way: firstly, they felt that Britain was already making a big enough contribution because we were the third biggest contributor to the regular budget of the World Health Assembly, and we were also contributing in our own Colonial Territories and through United Nations technical assistance, and we ought not to be expected, therefore, on top of that to make a contribution to the special fund; they also felt that the regular budget was a better and fairer method doing this job.
Whatever may have been the virtues in that argument, it was a wrong policy in which to persist. The views of the Government have been stated at the World Health Assembly and have been out-voted. I should have thought that, as a good member of the United Nations and in view of the tremendous human issues involved, we would have come into line with the decisions reached and contributed to the fund. The argument that we were already contributing extra through our Colonial Territories, and so on, was out-balanced by the fact that those territories were themselves receiving aid and being helped by the eradication campaign and that the United States of America, the biggest contributor to the special fund, was also the biggest contributor to the regular budget and also making a special effort through its own Pan-American Health Organisation.
I feel that, in view of that and in view of the fact that the Soviet Union and other countries were joining in, we ought at that stage to have changed our policy. I should like to hear the comments of the hon. Lady on that.
More particularly, I want to refer to the position as it has developed this year. The World Health Assembly met again in New Delhi in February, reviewed the


whole position, recognised that the special account was still not receiving contributions on the scale needed, and decided after all to adopt something like the original proposals of the British Government. It decided that the main burden would have to be shifted on to the regular budget of the World Health Organisation. I suppose it would be fair to say that it was the persistent attitude of the British Government over the years that led to that decision being reached.
If one looks at the conclusions in detail, these points emerge. It decided that the administrative costs of the campaign should immediately be passed over to the regular budget. Secondly, it decided that the cost of the programme in the field should be transferred by stages beginning in 1962, that there should be a rather larger transfer in 1963, and that the whole of the programme should be carried by the regular budget from 1964 onwards. Thirdly, it decided that certain countries would have to receive special credits—that is, countries with low national incomes which were carrying out an eradication programme of their own. There were seven countries specified to be in that position in the first year. Fourthly, it decided that the special account should be continued on the voluntary basis, first in order to meet the cost of the programme in the two-year period until the regular budget transfer, and secondly, to meet the question of credits to those nations I have mentioned. The way in which I read this resolution is that the special account would need to be continued indefinitely to pay for those credits. I am not sure whether this is a correct reading or not. I should like to hear from the hon. Lady on that matter in more detail. Whether that is so or not, certainly up to 1964 quite a heavy burden will be placed on the special account.
I come to the point: what should be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government now? I submitted a Question on 28th March to the Minister of Health as to what his policy would be and rather expected that, having gained the point on the main issue, the British Government would now be prepared to contribute to the special account in the interim period. I was very disappointed to get the reply which said that this

would not be the case and that even in this interim period they would not be prepared to make a contribution to the special account. I should like to know why that is so. I think that the hon. Lady should tell the House. It seems to me that because the special account has to carry this heavy burden in the interim period—and we would all agree that it is vital that the programme itself should not suffer from lack of funds—we ought to meet the needs of the New Delhi resolution, which included an appeal to all the countries concerned to contribute to the special account.
I should like also to be told what is to happen and what is to be the attitude of the Government if it turns out between now and 1964 that there is a shortage of funds so serious that the programme itself is affected. Would the British Government be prepared to support the idea of a supplementary budget for the World Health Organisation in order to bring in extra funds, and, if so, how long that would take? Do they think the World Health Organisation has enough in reserve funds to meet such a contingency? Otherwise, a shortage of funds would hold up the programme. In view of that, and in view of the terms of the New Delhi resolution, would it not now be better for the Government to reconsider their attitude, and to say that they will make a contribution to the special fund?
We have to see this against the challenge of the malaria eradication campaign itself. It is wonderful that we should have now reached a stage at which it is possible in the foreseeable future to wipe out malaria throughout the world. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the British Government should not, by their dogmatic adherence to one method of financing the project, do anything to harm the progress of the project; not only that, but that they should do nothing which would appear to be harming it.
It appears to me that in the last few years the Government have not considered the effect of their attitude on opinion in the countries that suffer from malaria. If the impression were to be given that we do not care enough about the project, it would be a very serious matter. We should not drag our feet in any way, nor appear to do so. For those reasons, I should like to see a


change in the Government's attitude; and to hear that they have decided to make a contribution to the world malaria fund.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has put the case extremely cogently, and has in no way exaggerated the importance of the eradication of malaria. The successes of the post-war period in eradicating this disease in large areas of the world are among the most significant things that have happened for the human race. I believe that the possibility of the total elimination of malaria is far more important, and of far more significance to humanity—and I say this at the risk of appearing to be reactionary and conservative—than all the space travel and the putting of men into orbit that can be achieved by the great countries.
We are all greatly disappointed that the British Government have appeared to be dragging their feet in this matter. I know that the standard excuse, and I have heard it many times in this House, is that the Government feel that they contribute adequately to the agencies of the United Nations and are in principle opposed to contributing to special funds. I have never found that a particularly convincing argument. As my hon. Friend explained, there is here a need for some special contribution over an interim period, and I should have thought that Her Majesty's Government could meet such a demand without infringing that principle—even though one may not agree with that principle.
I hope that tonight we shall not hear the same rather niggling and parsimonious arguments that we have heard in the past, and that the hon. Lady will remember that in this matter, as in so many others, what this country does can influence many other countries; that we are looked to to give a lead. I do not honestly think that there can be any international cause which more deserves the Government's support than does that of eliminating malaria totally from the earth, which is a possibility if only the effort is made today.

11.59 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I hope that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will not

accuse me of being niggling, as I have given him some of my precious time for reply, and I must try to say quite a Jot in the remaining ten minutes.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) gave some of the history of this case, and much of the information about this particular activity of the World Health Organisation. I hesitate to take up time on further facts, but I must to some extent do so for the record because, with the hon. Member, I think it important to have it on the record, and to correct some misunderstandings.
We already contribute to malaria eradication in four ways—through the W.H.O. regular budget, through the U.N.I.C.E.F., through the U.N. Technical Assistance Fund—both of which make contributions to the W.H.O.—and, though this may not be strictly relevant it has a part to play in malaria, through the grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. The total expenditure under these Acts during the last twelve years was £760,000.
I mention those things because the situation is complicated and I think tends at times to become artificial in the light of the fact that the W.H.O. uses money from other sources as well as from the Malaria Eradication Special Account to carry out its operations against malaria. In fact, in 1961, of all the work done through the W.H.O. on malaria eradication the contribution from the M.E.S.A. was about one-third, and I think that I should again put the figures on the record.
The M.E.S.A. contributed 5·7 million dollars. The regular budget contributed just over 714,000 dollars. The extended programme of technical assistance contributed 639,000 dollars. The Special Malaria Fund of the Pan-American Health Organisation contributed just over 3 million dollars, and the other extra-budgetary fund, which was mainly the U.N.I.C.E.F., contributed over 8 million dollars, making a total of nearly 19 million dollars. It will be seen that this effort through M.E.S.A. was in fact a topping-up process of the whole of the effort of the W.H.O. in malaria eradication.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the M.E.S.A. was established in 1955 on the initiative of a group of about twenty-five countries. In those early days the major


Powers, including the United States, were against this arrangement, regarding it as incorrect and unconstitutional to try to finance a great scheme of this kind by soliciting additional voluntary contributions from Governments. Subsequently, in 1957, the United States changed its policy and, as a great gesture, contributed 5 million dollars to the M.E.S.A.
The idea of a concentrated campaign to eradicate malaria has always seemed to us an essential part of the work of the W.H.O. We felt too that it was wrong in principle to try to finance it through voluntary Governmental contributions outside the regular budget of the W.H.O. That was the view of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman said.
We made our position clear from the beginning. We have never felt that it would be right to embark on voluntary Governmental contributions. We have made it clear that we are ready to see the cost of this enterprise transferred to the regular budget, and through the regular budget to pay our share.
The W.H.O. had its latest General Assembly in New Delhi almost exactly two months ago. This Fourteenth Assembly decided—that is, the majority decided, because, although the United Kingdom pays over 7 per cent. of the W.H.O. regular budget, it is only one of about a hundred voting members—to adopt a scheme which had the support of the United States of America whereby gradually over a period of four years these costs of the malaria eradication scheme, which are at present met by M.E.S.A., are to be transferred from the special account to the regular budget.
I think I should make it clear that at that Assembly the secretariat of the W.H.O. and the United States representative put forward a number of the schemes, the purpose of which was one way or another to transfer the cost of the M.E.S.A. to the regular budget. The United Kingdom delegate supported the scheme which would put any shortfall in voluntary contributions immediately on to the regular budget. He explained that this, no doubt, would lead to a considerable increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the Budget, but we were prepared to accept that on the

understanding that it would mean proper budgetry control and fair sharing of the campaign between members.
The United States delegate, I understand, said it was clear that the programme could not continue on the present basis since it was lacking in two essential attributes—that is, certainty of continued and unbroken effort, and the full co-operation of all the parties concerned. He went on to say that financing by voluntary effort was frequently the most efficient method of beginning new activities, but once it became a regular feature of the work of an organisation, proper support was needed. The scheme adopted was one sponsored by the United States representatives, which provided for the transfer by stages and to a system of credits to countries carrying out their own malaria eradication schemes and having a low per capita income.
The administrative and operational costs—over 600,000 dollars—have already fallen on the regular budget in 1961, so we are paying our share of these. An additional 2 million dollars will fall on the regular budget for 1962, 4 million dollars on the regular budget for 1963, and the whole cost, about 6 million dollars, on the budget for 1964. This means an increase of over 20 per cent. in the budget for 1962 as compared with the original budget for 1961, the highest increase on record in the World Health Organisation, and I would remind the House that the United Kingdom is the third largest contributor to this budget, after the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. The working budget approved for 1962 is 23·6 million dollars, compared with 18·9 million dollars for 1961.
So in addition to our share in the administrative costs we shall pay 140,000 dollars of the additional 2 million dollars in 1962, 280,000 dollars of the additional four million dollars in 1963, and 420,000 of the total cost in 1964. In addition to this, the Assembly in February last, decided that during the transitional period member countries who are carrying out malaria eradication campaigns and have low per capita incomes, will get, through the budget, credits of 75 per cent. in 1962,, 50 per cent. in 1963, and 25 per cent. in 1964 to offset the increases in their contributions to the regular budget which this 20 per cent. increase in the total would otherwise cause.
About two-thirds of the member countries will get credits under this scheme, so, in effect, it is a group of about thirty member countries with relatively large per capita incomes which will in future share the burden which was in the past borne by a few volunteers but mainly by the United States, who contributed about 90 per cent.
As already mentioned, we have repeatedly made it clear, both within W.H.O. and in this House, that the earlier plan based essentially on voluntary contributions by Governments to a fund which forms no part of the regular budget, was not a proper way to finance a big programme of this kind.
In the past only about half the member countries have contributed to the special voluntary fund and, as already said, about 90 per cent. has been contributed by the United States of America.
This is a matter on which there is clearly room for differences of opinion, but the Government do not accept the view that we have an obligation to depart from our decision of principle and to make voluntary contributions. We have made it clear that we are ready to help through the proper machinery of the budget, where we should be doing so along with other member countries who make their properly assessed contributions and take a fair share of this responsibility.
There is no question of the United Kingdom not supporting malaria eradication provided the scheme is a practical one, and our record shows this. We have

made substantial contributions to the technical side with research work, scientific knowledge, the application of that knowledge in the field, and with training facilities. Sir Gordon Covell, the Ministry's adviser on malaria, was awarded the Darling Prize at the last Assembly in New Delhi, with Dr. Gabaldon of Venezuela.
The additional scheme based on voluntary contributions by Governments is not the right way, but we are prepared to take our share of this on a regular World Health Organisation budget. This is what is happening. It is true that it is phased over the next four years, but we would have been willing to accept immediate transfer to the budget, but on the system now adopted we shall be bearing a substantially increased contribution over the years. To answer the hon. Member's question about a supplementary budget—and if that is put forward it will not I think, be for the first time—if the process is expedited, we are prepared to face that.
In the future the Director-General of W.H.O. will be able to go on planning more effectively than he has done in the past since he can put his trust in the resources of the regular budget rather than in the particular generosity of the U.S.A. Therefore, I hope that it will continue in the right way and thus ensure continuity in the job of work we all want to see done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o'clock.